Is Regionalization/Regional Integration a Viable Alternative Strategy towards International

Peace and Security; Cooperation and Stability? : A Case Study on European Union as a Promoter of

Regional and Extra-Regional Peace and Security

By:Anna Rosario Dejarlo Malindog

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

Thesis Statement 7 Research Questions 7 Limitations of the Study 8 Research Methodologies 8

Chapter 2: Contextualization: A Situational Analysis on the 9Current World Oder vis-à-vis the State of Global Peace and Security

A World Driven by Strife, Wars and Conflicts: A Historical 9

Perspective on the Changing Nature of War and Conflict over Time

Emerging Global Peace and Security Challenges: The 14 State of Global Security, Peace and Cooperation

Chapter 3: Related Literature 19

Related Literature on Peace and Security: 19 Literature on Regionalization vis-à-vis Regional 23

Peace and Security Regional Peace and Security Literature 26

Chapter 4: Conceptual Framework 27

The Interdependence of Peace and Security 28 Regionalization: Trends and Dynamics 29

What is a region? 29 What is Regionalization? 32

Four Major Categories of Regionalization vis-à-vis 35 Peace and Security: Regionalization vis-à-vis Peace and Security: 42 The Spill-Over Effects The Spill - Over Effects of Regional Peace and Security: 44

2

Extra –Regional Diffusion of Peace and Security The Regional and Extra Regional Diffusion of 47 Peace and Security: Instruments and Strategies

Agents of Peace and Security 47Instruments of Peace and Security 49Level of Regional Integration 50Regional Normative Engagement and Institutionalism 51Regional Identity 51

Chapter 5: Case Study on European Union as a Promoter of 52 Regional and Extra-Regional Peace and Security

Introduction 54 EU General Information: Facts and Figures 56 Historical Background and Perspective behind the 58 Creation and the Establishment of EU: The Fundamental Principles and Values that Governed EU and the Basis and Nature of European Regional Integration Regional Peace and Security and EU 64 Level and Categorical Description of EU Regional Integration 64 EU Instruments and Agents in Promoting 65 The Enlargement Policy 65 Neighborhood Policy 67

EU Position on the Middle East Peace Process 75 European Mediterranean Partnership/Barcelona Process 80

European Identity 82 EU Security and Defense Policy and Foreign Policy 83 European Security Strategy (ESS) 88 European Transatlantic Relations 94

Chapter 6: Analysis and Conclusion 97

Chapter 7: Bibliography 100

3

Chapter1: Introduction

“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that we have to erect the ramparts of peace”. Images precede weapons, hatred precedes images and the divisions among men precede hatred. We think of the destruction of others long before we invent the battle axe or the ballistic missile. The variety of human expression and the expression and the experience that leads to ethnic, religious and national identities s not per se at the root of the patterns that lead to violence. Yet we must understand the manner in which certain division among the human family lead to violence. For if we don’t and we are unable to achieve a united world we may be facing a very fearful future”

(UNESCO, 1993)

The horrors of wars1, - the dead, disabled, and displaced are constants, as are the demands for solutions to it but the conditions under which they operate have changed in many cases sharply. Wars and conflicts may differ in character and orientation depending on the nature, motives and circumstances from which

1 War is the organized use of force to achieve essential objectives usually political, often economic. Frequently, war is the lever or product of change in the distribution of power. War has material consequences – fatalities, wounded people, famine, disease, and displacement. War often generates a new set of immediate needs, - medical attention, psychological treatment, food and shelter – after traditionally coping mechanisms have been overwhelmed (Hoffman & Weiss, 2006; 10 -11).

4

they proceed. But whatever political justifications or explanations one will say, the increasing visibility of wars and conflicts, either intra-state or inter- state in nature and orientation needs a new international framework and solution. However, this challenge towards finding alternative solutions to wars and conflicts and creating an environment of peace and security becomes more challenging because of the very fact that today’s contemporary society is not only confronted with conventional problems such as, longer aggression, conquest, and the obliteration of states, but is faced with other challenges such as, the collapse of states, humanitarian issues and emergencies, state sponsored terror against segments of local populations and ethnic based and religious based conflicts. In this case, solutions must be varied, creative and alternative to the existing solutions of today which are not working at all. Indeed, pluralism in terms of responses to conflicts, violence and wars are necessary and are required, which means that different approaches maybe be necessary to different types or forms of conflict or wars. However, responses should be guided by the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence.

In the post Cold War Era, much attention was accorded to regionalism, and the consolidation of regional peace and security and trade blocks such as the European Union in Europe and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) in Asia. This growing trend towards the formation of regional cooperation and networks has been facilitated by the dissolution of the Cold War geo-political landscape. Regional blocks such as the ASEAN and the EU were designed to promote not only regional bargaining economic power but the promotion of peace and security within and outside of the

5

regional domain. The formation of regional blocks or organizations to a considerable and substantial degree and in many ways had always been associated or linked to the promotion of peace, security, cooperation, stability and to the whole dynamics of peace and security building regardless of the nature and historical background of such regional integration or formation. Various examples and case studies of regional integration in different parts of the world can validate this claim. Regional Integration in Africa, in Latin America, in South Asia, in Southeast Asia and in Europe are just few of the many examples therein that would account that indeed regional integration and cooperation; peace and security; and stability building are but intertwined and very much linked to each other.

In many ways than one “regional integration” such as the case of EU and the ASEAN in particular, has been analyzed extensively by many scholars of political science and international relations and even of economics. However, “the issue of the external effects of integration” is a topic that both political scientists and economists have mostly overlooked and this is the second most important dimension that this thesis paper will attempt to explore and study which will be put more in context via the case study on EU. The other important and major research question that the paper will try to account for is the proposition that indeed “regionalization is a potent and viable alternative strategy towards the establishment of peace and security within a geographical location such as the “region”. This will also be put into context through the case study of the paper on EU.

In retrospect, collectively speaking, as a “domino effect”, if the processes and mechanisms of regionalization in different parts

6

of the world turned successful, probability wise, regionalization to a considerable degree will be able to contribute substantially to the long standing goal of establishing a sustainable peace and security globally. In this regard, common peace and security regional arrangements can become the first step towards global peace and security.

Thesis Statement:

“Regionalization” is a viable alternative strategy or instrument in facilitating and promoting and in the long run attaining sustainable “global peace and security” via the collective existence and emergence of “regional peace and security” in different parts and sub-regions of the world not necessarily in absolute terms but in relative terms”.

Research Questions:

1. Can the process of regionalization be instrumental in creating peace and security at the regional level?

2. How relevant is space/spatial consideration and geographical proximity vis-à-vis the endogenous generation and promotion of peace and security? This is an important question to ask because the body of literature of peace and security tends to overlook the spatial platform of security (or insecurity), or

7

prevention and deterrence of threats. Ironically, even the literature on the specific theme of regional security either neglects the question of why security should be conceived “regionally”, or presents narrow explanations based on the low reach of threats.

3. Is it peace and security that cause regional integration or if it’s regional integration that causes peace and security? An assumption has been drawn saying that peace and security and regional integration are mutually reinforcing processes and mechanisms. However, it has been argued that this causal relationship is “tautological” which means it can’t be verified empirically because they state a logical or semantic relationship not a causal one. This question will be explored more by the paper.

4. What causes regional peace and security? What factors bring about the stabilization of war-prone regions?

Limitation of the Study:

The thesis paper basically is more of a qualitative rather than quantitative one. This is in view of the fact that the issue or topic under studied thus far has a social science and humanism dimensions to it. This is so far the first limitation of the research. The second limitation refers to the fact that, due to limitation of time, the author was not able to conduct in depth field research, though this has been compensated by the fact that, since the author has been working and is very familiar with the topic, in one way or the another, she was able to integrate her own experiences

8

and thoughts on the different issues tackled by the paper. Second to this, is the fact that, there was an in depth library and internet based research that was conducted by the author as well. In a way, the author banked on and built the paper relying more on current secondary resources and available information, existing current literature and research materials on the said topic.

Research Methodologies:

In the conduct of the research, the author basically conducted the following ways and means of gathering information and data;

Small Interviews - with people who are engaged in the ASEAN and EU processes and have sufficient knowledge on these entities and on regionalization, peace and security studies.

Library Research - reading journals, books, magazines and any kind of written publications which are good, relevant and provided updated information on the topic under study.

Internet Research – browsing and surveying online organizational and academic search engines and website which contain relevant, useful and updated information on said topic.

Chapter 2: Contextualization: A Situational Analysis on the Current World Order vis-à-vis the State of Global Peace and Security

9

“The human family is one body with many parts, creations arising from one unseen essence. Any harm to any part summons an awakening a disease and a healing response from all parts. You who fail to feel pain of others cannot be called truly humans”.

Saadi (Persian Poet of the 13th

Century)

A World Driven by Strife, Wars and Conflicts: A Historical Perspective on the Changing Nature of War and Conflict over Time

The emergence, nature and the character of wars has fascinated strategist, tacticians, and scholars of politics and international relations since time of Plato until now. Philosopher like Thucydides wrote something about the “Peloponnesian War”, which was all about the struggle between Athens and Sparta. Sun Tzu wrote the “Art of War”, and his follower Sun Pin came up with a book entitled “Military Methods”. Both books talks about the different strategies and tactics of warfare and contemporary authors and philosophers are still analyzing and writing quite pretty the same things even until today. However, in the contemporary world, the most interesting things that most of these thinkers overlooked most of the time is the evolution and changing nature and dimensions of war, the spatial dimension of war, the changing loci of wars and most of all, the alternative but viable strategies, approaches and tactics by which wars could be preventive and

10

avoided or resolved for that matter and for peace and security to flourish in a more stable and sustainable manner.

In as far as the nature and character of wars and conflicts of the 20th and 21st century are concerned one can notice various significant changes that have taken place. The bloodiest wars of the 20th century were waged by large and powerful countries like the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, Japan, Germany and France across borders for prolonged periods of time for the purposes of expansion of territory, accumulation of more wealth, and gaining both political and economic influence and domination over less powerful countries (Hoffman and Weiss, 2006; 59). As one can observed the nature of conflicts and war of this time has been inter-state and in terms of character, they are but considered to be “hegemonic wars” which brought so much calamities and casualties in the face of humanity. However, this state versus state conflict has decreased relative to the emergence of violence and conflict within states in the 1990s. For instance 94% of wars resulting in more than 1 000 deaths were civil wars. In 2004, out of 25 emergencies treated to be of “important concerns”, 23 of which were conflicts whose nature and origins were civil wars or intra-state conflicts.

Another interesting feature that is quite significant to be explored with its varying degrees of fragmentation is the “regionalization” of wars and conflicts and the “de-territorialization” of security. These could be observed in the regional wars in Western Africa (in Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast), Central Africa (concentrated primarily in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and Sudan), the

11

on-going conflict between and within states of the diversified societies and states in Central Asia (Afghanistan, the middle east crisis, the Causcasus and Kashmir), and the growing social unrest in South America in countries like Colombia and Andean countries, as Peru and Bolivia.

It is quite evident that these conflicts and wars significantly can be characterized as intra-state conflicts however historically speaking their origins can be traced back from earlier inter-state wars. The frontiers of these so-called “new wars” do not fit within the conventional notion of wars/conflicts and they consist of increasing multitude of unconventional political units with dramatic and latent security implications. Furthermore, these wars are fought locally in neighborhood, villages, and other sub-national units of which took million of lives. To quote former UN Secretary Boutros Boutros Ghali;

“These new breed of intra-state conflicts have certain characteristics. They are usually fought not only by regular armies but also by militias and armed civilians with little discipline and with ill defined chains of command. They are often guerilla wars without clear front lines. Civilian are the main victims and often the main targets” (Hoffman and Weiss, 2006; 89).

In view of all these, it is but imperative to think through and be innovative and creative in responding to these new set of challenges which current and conventional solutions to conflicts and wars maybe it be inter-state or intra state could not resolve substantially. The aim and impulse of protecting and assisting the vulnerable and the innocent who are usually the victims of conflicts

12

is as timeless and universal through the ages as the beginning of wars themselves. Even ancient civilizations such as that of the Greeks, Romans, Persian, Chinese, Egyptians, Jewish, Christians and Muslims in which hegemonic wars were wages had always pledge for the protection of the weak and some elements of what you call “just wars” (Hoffman and Weiss, 2006; 36). The quest for finding solutions to wars and conflicts, even the creation of norms in the conduct of wars has been the pre-occupation not only of today’s political scientist, international relations and geo-politics experts but has been persisting since pre-enlightenment era. For instance, Kalevi Holsti, in his writings discussed in length the norms, rules and etiquette of warfare that occurred in 18th and 19th centuries. The creation of modern humanitarian system for victims of wars and conflicts of whatever forms and types has been established in 1863, with the establishment of new civilian institutions and international laws setting the bounds of wars and armed conflicts. The “Geneva Convention of 1899” and the “Hague Convention of 1907” were among the first global initiatives in truly addressing the causes and the extent of atrocities and damages that wars and armed conflicts can possibly inflict upon humanity (Hoffman and Weiss, 2006; 37).

On the other hand, the period in between World War I and World War II, the formation of social movements, humanitarian agencies along side the creation of inter-governmental organizations like the League of Nations as a precursor of the United Nations were among the instruments perceived to be tools in resolving conflicts. The League of Nations for example (1920 – 1946), was formed during the political turmoil of World War I

13

bearing with it the aim of preventing nationalist movements from being diffused external to the domestic territorial boundary of a country and to forge peaceful relations both among the member and non-member states (Hoffman and Weiss, 2006; 42) . The formation of the United Nations after the 2nd World War is another big leap and attempt to facilitate collective peace and security through the idealized norms and practices of international cooperation among nation-states of the world.

However, it as been proven that this new world order especially when you speak about peace and security and the resolution or processes and approaches in mitigating conflicts cannot not be achieved only through national and global efforts alone. A new mechanism which would complement national and global efforts has to be created or established in order for changes in the world vis-à-vis the promotion of global peace and security could be realized. Seeking purely military solution for social, political, and economic problems is seen as recipe for failure. There is a need for more creativity and innovation in finding solutions to the current world crises and problems related to peace and security. Accordingly, one of the possible viable solutions to this peace and security crises that have been dominating the world is the processes and mechanisms of “Regionalization”. This cooperative alternative peace and security strategy, tool or vision seeks to create the conditions necessary to minimize reliance on force.

14

B. Emerging Global Peace and Security Challenges: The State of Global Security, Peace and Cooperation

“The worst ill of today’s world is that we live in a spoiled moral environment. We have become morally ill because we are used to saying one thing and thinking and doing another. We have learned not to believe in anything, not to care about each other, to worry only about ourselves, and the concepts of love, friendship, humility and forgiveness have lost their depths and dimension. For many, they merely represent only some sort of psychological curiosity, or they appear as long lost wonderers from far away times, somewhat ludicrous in the era of computers and spaceships”.

Vaclav Havel(UN, 1993; 35-36)

The 21st century is one of the most crucial and critical time in the history of humankind with much opportunities and possibilities for both the development and upgrading or the worsening of the state of world order most especially in the area of peace and security. This condition may lead to either positive or negative impacts in reference to the survival of the human specie. Moreover, 21st century is also characterized by the declined but not the eradication of military policy of competition and expansionism that dominated the Cold War era which could be ascertained to be a positive development in relations to the promotion of peace and security globally. So far, in view of the post Cold War condition,

15

relatively speaking, advances towards peace and security had been achieved in an incremental manner. Peace and security in Western Europe and Southeast Asia and even in Latin America and some parts of Africa to a considerable degree has been achieved. Some of the long standing conflicts of these sub-regions have largely but not totally been resolved or eradicated. As a consequence, generally speaking, certain conditions more conducive to the promotion and creation of an environment of peace and security have been obtained through cooperative and developmental endeavors between and among states worldwide. One of the concrete mechanisms through which these are possible is via the creation of international and regional organizations.

However, the profound changes that have been achieved after the 2nd World War and during the end of the Cold War were not largely solidified and now are having some reverse effects placing the world in a more compromising and critical position. New challenges to the promotion and proliferation of peace and security, new tensions, and new types of conflicts have emerged among and between individuals, within the domains of states, between nation-states and sub-regions challenging the relative achievement of the post-Cold War system of international peace and security. Imminent threats which fundamentally threatens the survival of human beings most especially those who are living and located in Third World countries are but gaining their foothold in the global arena of today. Some of these threats include, uncontrollable hatred, prejudice, and anger fueling ethnic conflicts, an immediate danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and biological weapons), destruction of the environment due to extreme ineffective and inefficient use of technologies, massive

16

industrialization taking place in the Third World and the continued advancement of industrialization and commercialization in the First World, massive poverty existing in almost all parts and sections of the world due to inequalities, corruptions, economic stagnation and hunger which dominates those countries which are under repressive governments and are in conflict and post-conflict situations. In addition, the world of today is also confronted with issues such as ethnic and racial intolerance, violations of human rights, and various forms of religious fundamentalism.

In developing countries, since the 2nd World War, there have been 127 conflicts, major and minor, from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Nicaragua and Afghanistan. In as far as casualties are concerned around 22 million people have died in these conflicts (UN, 1993; 55). Since 1989, there have been over 33 armed conflicts that produced ten of millions of refugees and internally displaced peoples (IDPs) and enormous suffering and degradation of human condition to those victims of these wars and conflicts which had intra- and inter-state dimensions. The extent of the existing conflicts of varying nature and latency are beyond the criteria of what you call a “civilized world” and even beyond the bounds of “sanity”. For instance the bloody wars between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland; Hindus and Buddhists mass murdering each other in Sri Lanka; the seemingly never ending war and military confrontations between Israelis and Palestinians over territorial disputes which have taken million of lives from both sides is escalating; the tensions and conflicts in the Middle East i.e. the issue of Iran’s ambition to have nuclear weapons being opposed by powerful countries of the West such as the United States and United Kingdom, if would not be resolved through diplomatic means and if

17

this will intensify could possibly result to nuclear war, - a war the world could not afford to have; the dismal political, socio-economic, peace and security conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Catholics and Muslims killing each other in former Yugoslavia, Hindus and Muslims murdering each other in India; the insurgencies taking place in Southeast Asia, i.e. the civil military conflicts taking place in the South of the Philippines and Thailand and continues military and extremely repressive rules in Burma and North Korea; the fragile peace and security conditions in South Asia i.e. Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka; the tension between Taiwan and mainland China (central government in Beijing) and so on and so forth. Given all these, there is but a need to address such turmoil taking place in the world today. There is a need for inventing creative solutions and strategies that could address the “vicious cycle” of wars and conflicts that had dominated the world since time immemorial.

Indeed, the problems of today which are threatening the survival and solidarity of human beings are not necessarily economical or political in nature but also they arise because of other reasons such as basic religious and ethnic conflicts and misunderstandings. The conflicts of today and of the future are likely to be more between people rather than between nation-states. These can already be seen in Somalia, Bosnia, Angola and Cambodia and in other parts of the world. Global threats to peace and security gained different dynamics in a way that they are not anymore limited only to intra-state and inter-state conflicts or military confrontations between and among states (though still predominant in many ways in today’s geo-political situation) but threats that have transnational dimensions to them such as terrorisms, pollution, climate change or global warming, poverty,

18

drugs smuggling, migration and political instabilities in different parts of the world. In effect, if one will talk about peace and security vis-à-vis the current world order, it is imperative to note that peace and security are not just related to arms, military, and wars, but they also have development and social dimensions. The discourse of peace and security is not only applicable among and between states but much more relevant to individuals as well. Indeed, if one would really observe closely and deeply, the biggest problem of the world today is the “reconciliation” of humankind. The challenge in gaining reconciliation among and between people and nation-states coming from different orientations, backgrounds and walks of life is but an enormous task that each and every human being must be concerned about. There is a need for new ways of thinking and news ways of doing things. There is but a need for innovation and changing of old principles and practices that are not anymore relevant to the conditions and dynamics of today.

In retrospect, geo-politically speaking and looking at the international relations dimension of the 21st century, it is an era of declining superpower influence, emerging regional powers and revolutionary change. This century is characterized by the diffusion of conflict at the regional level and the conflicts at the regional level are primordially intra-state conflicts, a feature to which none of the conflict management mechanism laid out by today’s experts can effectively and efficiently respond to. Indeed, we see clearly the move away from “bipolarity”, a character of the Cold War era to “multi-polarity”, a character of the post-Cold War era. There is a view that the overall process will in fact lead to an increased in emphasis on regional and sub-regional arrangements. The stability of these arrangements will clearly depend upon the intra-regional

19

as well as the inter-regional processes. Now the equilibrium and stability, no matter what the final architecture, global or regional – must reflect the rather broader aspects of peace and security – broader meaning beyond military and includes issues within the realm of geo-politics, international relations, economics, environment and cultures.

If the world before was a composite of alliance of Cold War, then now, maybe is the time for alliance for peace and security in various regions of the world like the Middle East, South Africa, South Asia, and elsewhere. There is a need for alliances may it be regional and international for peace and security though preventive diplomacy and other means. This is vital to foresee possible future conflicts and to prevent them before they actually take place. Today is the time to focus on the political climate for the production of political, public policies that will build peace and security in a global and integrated way that corresponds to the modern world.

Chapter 3: Review of Related LiteratureA. Related Literature on Peace and Security:

“Peace” is a concept that so far has always been present in the evolution of human thought since time immemorial. The concept of peace is directly linked to the cultural, political and social contexts it is anchored upon vis-à-vis notions of universal peace and peace based on a temporal generalizations. Since the Roman Empire, “pax” (peace) was interpreted as “absentia bellum” (absence of violence) through order and unity based on the power of the center. It was also during this time that the idea of “just

20

war” was recognized. First developed by Aristotle, further developed by Augustine and then by Thomas Aquinas and Francisco Suarez. The concept of a just war actually explored the idea if it is possible and feasible to justify wars on moral grounds. During the Renaissance and the Reformation, the thinkers of peace include Erasmus, Rotterdamus, Thomas Munzer, Sebastian Franck, Cruce’ and Gotius, who state that “peace is more than lack of war it means the improvement of life, the achievement of social justice, freedom, and equality” (Tavares, 2007; 89- 90).

During the enlightenment period where everything revolves around “reason” as the primary force in improving human condition, the debates during this time centered on the achievement of peace. In general, the focus of discussion was the arrangement of what Kenneth Waltz in 1970s called the international system. William Penn’s “An Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe” (1692), Saint Pierre’s, “Project Pour la Paix Perpetuelle en Europe” (1713), J.J. Rousseau’s, “A Universal and Perpetual Peace” (1761), Jeremy Bentham’s, “A Plan for a Universal and Perpetual Peace” (1786), Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace” (1795), facilitated the creation of a global conception of peace based on the national independence and sovereignty of states. Michael Howard said that, “it was during the Enlightenment period that that peace was created”. From that time onwards, peace has been the quest by visionaries and it becomes the rhetorical topic spoken overtly by political leaders even today (Tavares; 2007, 89- 90).

On the other hand, the 19th and the 20th centuries were dominated by the internationalists. In the advent of the two world

21

wars, a peace project was conceptualized based on distinct political ideologies. Marx, Lenin and Trotsky called for “social reorganization”, while Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson aimed of attaining peace through democracy and world wide liberalism. Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell called for a world state of peace to replace the existing anarchic system of international arena. It is only during the 20th century that peace so far received the wrappings of a “scientific framework” over empirical and theoretical lines. Personalities like Theo Lentz, Quincy Wright, Lewis Richardson, and Pitirim Sorokin, made their respective contributions to this dimension of peace by building new theories of peace through research. In as far peace research is concerned, it was further developed by two main academic schools; the American Schools founded by Kenneth Boulding and the Scandinivian School initiated by Johan Galtung. The American school focused on the issue of preventing and reducing the incidence of war basing upon the tradition of the Western Roman theory of “pax” (peace) as “absentia bellum”. On the other hand, the Scandinivian schools focused first and foremost on peace and the structural –cultural conditions of violence by following a Greco-Arabic Hebraic pattern. These conceptualizations of peace were further developed by Galtung and throughout his studies he came up with the concept of the binary dimension of peace, “negative vs positive peace”. He defined “negative peace” as the absence of direct and physical violence, whereas, “positive peace” was referred to as the successful transformation of structural violence. According to Galtung, structural violence occurs whenever people are faced with political, economic, cultural and legal traditions, or as he simply put it, “it refers to any constraint on

22

human potential due to economic and political structures” (Tavares, 2007; 89- 90).

On other hand “security” is another important concept in international relations whose evolution and inner meaning has been explored further by scholars and thinkers both of international relations and political science but received minimal reflections. The term “security” was first introduced by Epicureans or Stoics during the Roman Empire around 1st century B.C. Back then “secrus” (security) {se, meaning without and cura, concern, worry) was a state of mind which reflected the absence of distress upon which happy life depends. However, during the period of Christianity with the collapse of the Roman Empire, security as a concept lost its positive connotation. The notion of security changed from that which is something that can be controlled by human beings to that which can only be granted by “GOD” as a gift. It was in the 7th and 8th centuries that state became an entity that provides for security to its population via diplomatic and military means. During this period, the security of individuals was subsumed as a political epigram in the security of the nation. The state in Leibnitz’ definition was “a great society of which the object is common security” (Tavares, 2007; 91-92).

During the 1st and 2nd World Wars, security was perceived to be a multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional problem. Security as a concept cut across different disciplines such as international relations and law, economics, political theory and psychology and also is associated to other concerns such as the promotion of democracy, prevention of war, or the role of international organizations. In policy area, “national security” gain predominance. In the 1950s onwards, security had a more realist

23

orientation. During the so-called “Golden Age”, the state was identified as an important actor and its military capabilities were treated as the primary tool in propagating security within the state boundary. From then on, states were not only seen as deliverers of security but the referent objects itself. As a provider of security among its citizens, the state became latently recognized, its instruments – administrative structure which includes the government, armed forces, intelligence organizations, executive legislature etc. had to be protected from outside interference and threats. This development of making the state as the primary actor in security issues can be traced back from the 16th century idea, - “raison d’ etat” (reason of the state) popularized by Machiavelli which is commonly known today as “national interest”. In the years ahead, the meaning and connotations of security has been widened to include different types of threats beyond military. Major contributors of the broadening of the scope and definition of security include Barry Busan and the Copenhagen Security School. They espoused a social construction of security, “explaining threats to reflect objects and the securitization of those threats that are non-military as well as military”. Security is being regarded as self-reference practice, which means that an issue becomes a security issue not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but rather because it is accepted as a threat to a referent object (Tavares, 2007; 9-95).

B. Literature on Regionalization vis-à-vis Regional Peace and Security:

The body of literature on the peace and security dimensions of International Relations and Geo-Politics still center on the

24

premise that the national (state level) and global level are the most explored areas and instruments through which peace and security can be studied, examined and reflected. The first instrument, - the state’s security has been studied rigorously by the “realist”2 and “neo-realist”3 scholars of international relations. The realists argue that changing and porous nature of the international system make it imperative for states to maximize power to achieved national security. In this case, nation-states cannot rely on permanent alliances and coalition or permanent adversaries. They argue that a regional integration and global cooperation can only be possible if and only if a third state will emerge as the balancer of power which would assure that the use of force will not be employed within its area of jurisdiction (Tavares, 2007; 56). The second instrument, - the global level and collective security has been studied well enough and widely by the “idealist” or “liberalists” school of international relations (Tavares, 2007; 29). This school of thought emphasized the importance of concepts such as “interdependence” and “institutionalization” as forces leading to a more cohesive international cooperation and integration.

However, recently, a new buzz word in international relations – “regionalism/regionalization” gained recognition as a concept 2 Realism incorporates the claim that international politics is about the interaction of self-interested states in an anarchic environment, where no global authority is capable of securing order (Morgenthau; 1985). From this perspective, states are seen as rational and unitary actors that define their interests based on an evaluation of their position in the system of states (Rosamond 2003; 131). State interest is therefore, primarily about survival with other concerns, such as economic growth, of secondary importance. Thus, the theory is centered on the view that nation-states are the key actors in international affairs and key political relations between states are channeled primarily via national governments (Nugent 1999; 509). 3 Neo-Realism like realism, assumes states to be self-regarding actors co-existing in an anarchical system. However, it also understands that there is some potential for order, on the basis of international cooperation if only as a rational means to state survival. It accepts the idea that any international institutions of all kinds are established to reduce the level of anarchy within the state system (Cini; 2003; 95).

25

and as a process in international relations and geo-politics that scholars must pay attention to and examine. The emergence of this concept has been said to be the product of different patterns and dynamics and is driven by the different agents/players of international relations and their respective goals. The “constructivist” school of thought believes that with the help of social interactions, new cooperative identities can be formed that could either substitute/replace or complement existing patterns and cooperative configurations among states and between states (Tavares, 2007; 56). One of these new patterns of cooperation is the formation of regional organizations and identities that have quite a significant impact in the promotion and proliferation of peace and security at the regional level through the creation of the so called “security communities” where mutual trust and that sense of “belongingness” or “we-ness” can arise. This regional peace and security is being claimed to be more stable and sustainable vis-à-vis global peace and security and this claim is actually of the main areas of concern of this thesis paper.

In a far as the above proposition of the constructivist vis-à-vis regionalization and regional peace and security are concerned, the theory of functionalism so far purports that indeed a gradual integration between countries would reduce if not would totally eradicate the tendencies for conflict to arise. According to David Mitrany (1993); “When states are able to relinquish some fragments of their sovereignty to cooperate at the supra-national level, it would lead to positive chain reaction. Once cooperation and integration started in uncontroversial and technical issues it could spill over to other sensitive areas” (Tavares, 2007; 58).

26

The “Neo-functionalism theory”4 on the other hand purports quite a supportive contribution on the merits of regional integration. As a theory it has pro-regional integration propositions and these include; (a) the “spillover” thesis; (b) the elite socialization thesis; and (c) the supranational interest group thesis (Cini, 2003; 81). According to neo-functionalists, international relations should not be treated as a zero sum game (realists view) rather a game where everyone benefits from especially when countries start to integrate and cooperate among themselves cohesively (Cini, 2003; 8). Another important theory of international relations which to some extent offers explanation as to what is regional cooperation is “inter-governmentalism”5. Inter-governmentalists advocate that regional cooperation has nothing to do with ideology or idealism, but is founded on the rational conduct of governments as they seek to deal with the policy issues, that confront them in the modern world (Cini, 2003; 95).

C. Regional Peace and Security Literature:

The “Regional Security Complex Theory or RSCT” was first conceptualized by Barry Buzan (1993/1991). The theory basically purports the idea that security and peace are relational terms based

4 Neo-functionalism was the first attempt at theorizing the new form of regional cooperation that emerged at the end of the 2nd World War. It is a theory of regional integration which seeks to explain the process of European Integration. The main focus of the theory is on the key factors that drive integration; interest group activity, political party activity, the role of governments, and supranational institutions (Cini; 2003; 80-82). 5 Inter-governmentalism believes that sovereignty rests within nation-states, although it maybe in the state interests to share/pool sovereignty and delegate it to supranational institutions (Cini; 2003; 97).

27

on the interdependence of states at the regional level. Buzan argued that, “since threats operate more potently over short distances, security and peace interactions with neighbors will to have first priority” (Tavares, 2007; 60). In effect, regional peace and security zones are composed of states whose security concerns are linked closely together wherein their national peace and security concerns cannot be perceptionally and practically considered to be independent from one another(Tavares, 2007; 65-66).

On the other hand, David Lake and Patrick Morgan (1997) introduced the idea of “regional order” as a significant approach towards understanding regional peace and security. They started with the concept of a “region” as a territory composed by two or more states united by common peace and security problems. This is quite similar to the ideas of Buzan. However, this theory of regional order depicted from that of Buzan in a way that they define regional peace and security areas or zones as “set of states continually affected by one or more peace and security externalities that emanate from a distinct geographic area”. The implication behind the introduction of the concept of “externality” is that regional peace and security is not contingent to territorial contiguity given that in some cases an externality has an impact on another country and vice versa. Indeed, the authors conceded to the fact that indeed “geography” is a physical space by which peace and security externalities transcend. Lake and Morgan further argued that, “regional peace and security have a life of its own and are able to refract the impact of the global system” (Tavares, 2007; 65-66).

28

Another scholar who had been very interested in regional peace and security and on how this could be maintained is Arie Kacowitz. He started his studies by defining the concept of “zone of peace” as a “discrete geographical region of the world in which a group of states have maintained peaceful relations among themselves for a period of at least 30 years” (Tavares, 2007; 69-70). To further explain his claim, he assessed the necessary, favorable and sufficient conditions drawing from various realists, geo-political and liberal theories and these include;

Regional hegemony Regional balances of power Common threat by a third party Regional democracy Economic integration, interdependence, and transnational

links Normative consensus and common cultural background Finally, satisfaction with the territorial status quo

Chapter 4: Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework has been designed as an attempt and for the primordial purposes of accounting and exploring the validity extent and plausibility of the basic preposition or hypothesis of the thesis paper which states that;

“regionalization” is a viable alternative strategy or instrument in facilitating and promoting and in the long run attaining sustainable “global peace and security” via the collective existence and emergence of “regional peace and

29

security” in different parts and sub-regions of the world not necessarily in absolute terms but in relative terms”.

In this regard, this section of the paper will explore and discuss essential concepts such as regionalization, peace and security as processes, mechanisms and ideas in a more relational manner and will show case the interdependence of these three concepts. First and foremost this section will explore the symbiotic relationship between peace and security and how the two are linked and related to each other. Then the concept and the different aspects of regionalization will be examined as well and how the processes and dynamics of regionalism are actually linked to peace and security. And lastly, this part of the paper will overall put all the three concepts in perspective which will satisfy the above mentioned hypothesis or basic premise of the study.

A. The Interdependence of Peace and Security:

It has always been assumed that peace and security have a direct correlation and are interdependent with each other. “Security” is associated with the management of threats, whereas “Peace” should be conceptualized as a state attained by the successful transformation of structural and direct violence. It goes without saying that one will not be attained in a sustainable manner without the presence or existence of the other. There are but factors that will ascertain the linkage and bond between peace and security. First is the “dependence and relational dimension” of peace and security which states that both concepts in a sense are not conceptually self-sufficient. They are derivative concepts,

30

meaningless without the existence of the other. Both concepts feed into each other. Second is the “positive” dimension which says that peace and security are positively “value – loaded”. The positive concept of peace is associated with material prosperity, humanism, democracy, and social justice. The positive dimension of security on the other hand is anchored on the realist orthodoxy that the primordial goal of states in an anarchic system is to survive and this can only be realized through the attainment of security. Third is the “scale” dimension of peace and security which espouses that both concepts are subject to changes depending on the contexts and situations that shape them. Fourth is the “evolutionary” dimension which refers to the historical and academic descriptions of peace and security. Accordingly, peace and security developed and evolved as they adapt to different social patterns and contexts and in effect they constantly are subject to changes and mutations. The last but not the least is “geography” and “physical link” or the concept of “spatial dimension” of peace and security. Security and peace have physical identities because threats travel over short or long distance (Tavares, 2007; 96-103). Indeed, it is but imperative and a must that peace and security should not be treated separately.

B. Regionalization: Trends and Dynamics:

What is a region?

It has been said that region has etymological, geographical and political dimensions. Etymologically and geographically speaking, “region” is derived from the Latin word “regio” which

31

refers to an administrative area or broad geographical area distinguished by similar features. But politically speaking, the word region can also be derived from the Latin word “regree” meaning “direct rule”. However to define region in a more detailed manner, the following factors must be considered; (Tavares, 2007; 81-82);

geography regularity and intensity of different regional actors and

nation-states shared regional perceptions presence or proliferation of regional institutions/agencies

Intellectuals like Palmer, H.J. de Bliji and Peter O. Muller, asserted that geography is the first pillar in the definition of a region. Regional for these thinkers is an arrangement of neatly demarcated territorial macro-regions. This definition of a region is directly link to the notion of “space”. Space is a concept that relates to the location of things in relations to other things, and how things are distributed. Space is closely linked to the idea of “distance” – how close or how far units are within a boundary. Space is not a static concept that could be reduced to latitude and grids. It is a psychological idea that is always subject to change by people and predicated upon a territorial basis. Harvey Starr had pointed out that states or social entities that are close to each and are in proximity to each other are better to interact. Starr further added that greater proximity actually bridges greater interdependence. The direct correlation of proximity and increased

32

interaction has been widely demonstrated by the literature (Tavares, 2007, 84-85). Proximity therefore provides the opportunity for greater and intensive interactions. Quincy Wright in his work on the causes of war came up with a theory that indeed “the greater the distance between states, the greater the possibility of war, since in isolation, there is no basis for mutual understanding”. Starr and Thomas have also found out in their work that “high level of interactions across borders precedes greater interaction opportunities”, which is related to the Deutschian interdependence – “integration effects”. However, territorial proximity also can pave the way towards the proliferation of conflict in a certain geographical area and this has been explored by the literature as well.

Indeed, space and proximity presuppose the idea of diffusion. Benjamin Most and Harvey Starr define spatial diffusion as a process whereby “events of a given type in a given polity are conditioned by the occurrence of similar events in other polities at prior points in the future”. Welsh relates diffusion to the “the process by which institutions, practices, behaviors or norms are transmitted between individuals and /or between social systems” (Tavares, 2007; 85). The study of spatial diffusion has been extended to conflicts. Hovweling and Siccama found out that outbreaks of war during the period 1816 – 1980 appear to have diffusion image pattern. With a similar result, Stuart Bremer after analyzing statistically the diffusion effects of 634 militarized inter-state disputes over the period 1900-1976, he came up with a conclusion that militarized disputes tend to have “a spill –over effects” within regions, but not across regions (Tavares, 2007; 86).

33

The second factor which helped clearly defined the idea of a region is the “constitutive content and the degree of internal cohesion” in defining a region. This actually refers to the creation of “social linkages” (language, culture, ethnicity, awareness of common historical heritage); “political linkages” (political institutions, ideology, regime types) or economic linkages (preferential trade arrangements). These thinkers are primarily concern about the level and extent of regional integration and regional internal cohesion (Tavares, 2007; 82).

For constructivist, region is being treated as an emergent socially conceptualized phenomenon. The primary focus is on the cognitive idea of region brought upon by socialization processes by region-builders (Tavares, 2007; 82). The classical approach in defining region on the other hand is more state-centered. Joseph Nye, for example defines an international region as a limited number of states linked together by a geographical relationship and by a degree of mutual interdependence (Tavares, 2007; 82-83). Bruce Russett defines a region by using social and cultural homogeneity, political attitudes or external behavior, political institutions, economic interdependence and geographical proximity as necessary components. Tavares defines region as a “cognitive construction that spills over state borders based on territoriality, with a certain degree of singularity, socially molded by a body of different actors and motivated by different and sometimes contradictory principles” (Tavares, 2007; 83). Langenhove extended the discourse of the definition of a region by introducing the concept of “regionhood” or the so-called “regionalization” or “regionalism” (Tavares, 2007; 84).

34

C. What is Regionalization?

Human society since time immemorial has always been faced with and confronted with a mosaic of different political, socio-economic and cultural differentiation and segmentation which in one way or the other had caused the continuous existence of wars and conflicts but balanced by the persistent trends and patterns of integration and consolidation at different levels and aspects of society. The geo-political configuration of the world, before and even until today reflects a world which to a greater extent still divided between the rich and powerful nation-state(s) commanding and dominating, and under and less developed and less powerful countries though claiming to be “sovereign” (political autonomy) but socially, economically, militarily (security) dependent on the rich and powerful countries. Indeed, it is but apparent that the existing relationship between the two sub-categories of countries mentioned is asymmetrical and one important consequences of this imbalance is the high vulnerability of creating and promoting peace and security structures globally. Though this has been the case historically speaking, one alternative way of mitigating such historically rooted imbalances is via “Regionalization”, which promises to bring balanced diversity with cohesion, and heterogeneity with integration.

“Regionalization” according Laszlo is a key element in a strategy which brings together the various forms of cooperation schemes and arrangements of countries in specific geographical locations which facilitate to a considerable degree inter-state cooperation and integration and in the long run cooperation among

35

regional blocks and associations. In concrete terms, regionalization begins with the surrender of sovereignty of political agents (nation-states) and the establishment of linkages via agreements entered by two or more countries sharing a geographic, social, economic and cultural background and having mutual interests either among themselves, or vis-à-vis other countries and regions (Laszlo, 1981; 6). This process motivates countries to be engaged in mutual cooperation in the interest of collective self-reliance, and security in every policy field.

Haas on the other hand defines regionalization as “a process whereby political actors in several distinct national setting are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities toward a new center, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states”. For Lombaerde and Langenhove, “regionalization or regional integration refers to a process of large scale territorial differentiation characterized by the progressive lowering of internal boundaries and the possible rising of new external boundaries”. Tavares on the other hand see regionalization “as a process which could be done in different sectors (social, cultural, economic and political sectors), which facilitates the emergence of a pluralistic security community, regional transnational economy; the emergence of supra-national institutions and the creation of common policies. For Geyer, “regionalization” is characterized by an intricate range of bilateral and multi-lateral relationships evolving between individual countries, groups of countries (as subsets of global regions), and global regions as a whole (Geyer, 2006; 28).

36

Regionalization both as a process and a phenomenon is taking place and has been tried in different parts of the world. It is but a part and parcel of the current international efforts in redefining current global order. It is believed to be a vital consideration in accelerating growth and development, stability, peace and security because of its inherent nature built upon the constructive exploitation of differences as long term complementarities, and the pooling of markets, labor forces, capital resources, energy access, scientific and technological capacities (Laszlo, 1981; 2-3; 12). However, for the purposes of this paper, there are two aspects of regionalization that would be explored further and deeper, first is preposition that indeed, regionalization and the establishment or the proliferation of peace and security are directly proportional and second is the so-called spill over or extra-regional effects of regional peace and security.

D. Four Major Categories of Regionalization vis-à-vis Peace and Security:

Accordingly, there are different categories of regionalization/regional integration process that took place and are taking place in various parts of the world and the four major categories are as follows;

37

Regional Fragmentation – marked by low level of regional integration and faced with intra and inter-states conflicts with spill over effects at the regional level. The sub-region of the world that could be described to be experiencing such regionalization processes are the Middle East and South Asia.

Regional Coalitions – this is characterized by increased in regional integration where there is no inter-state conflict. There might be regional fragmentation but the idea here is to put intra-regional peace and security management by regional organizations or on harmonization of policies and normative engagement institutionalization. This type of regionalization processes is taking place in Southeast Asia and South America.

Regional Communities – in this category, peace reigns. The region is being ascertained to be a “pluralistic security community” in view of the fact that states stopped threatening other states in the name of security and peace and at the same time states are free from the perception and feeling of being threatened. However, these “pluralistic regional security communities” are said to be regions which are considered to be relatively economically well off and to some extent have a high level of regional integration. Another important consequence of this type of regional formation is the creation of regional identity which basically promotes cohesion and cooperation regionally. The best example of this type of regional integration is the European Union.

Regional Governmental Politics – the most interesting feature of this regional formation is the emergence of supra-national institutions where states surrender some parts of

38

their sovereignty. In this regard, policy making is not anymore state driven. All these are possible because of the high level of regional integration, the presence of positive peace, a pretty well developed economy and the feeling of security among and between states and communities in this region. In as far as examples are concerned, so far, there is none for the moment.

Indeed, as one could possibly see, in any of the four major types of regionalization processes it is but a common scene that governments participate to maximize whatever it will gain from such cooperation and for cooperation to occur and to work, governments should be both willing and able to cooperate. Willingness on the other hand depends on the how the cooperation measures are achieved to influence achieving other objectives, and the ability of countries to cooperate depends on the resources available and on a leader or actor that could serve as a focal point of coordination of rules and policies. Another important consideration is that for any regional integration phenomenon to be effective and efficient, member states pledge to coordinate their efforts to regional politics and world diplomacy and to cooperate on issues of economics, education, health and sanitation, nutrition, culture, science and technology, defense, security and peace. For Vilpisauskas (Vilpisauskas, 2000; 11), “Regional Integration” as a process include;

The establishment and the intensification of diplomatic and economic relations

39

A pre-accession stage when the union explicitly acknowledges the possibility of eventual membership, and supplies schemes designed to prepare applicants for integration and into common market and accession

The accession negotiations during which individual applicants agree with the union on the negotiable conditions of membership, and further proceed with adoption of rules, governing the common market and common policies.

The accession itself after which the new members acquire the right to participate in the decision-making procedures but may have transition periods in certain areas.

As of today, because of economic, technological developments, the emergence of new types of security threats (i.e. terrorism, organized crime, production of weapons of mass destruction, etc..) and persistence of intra and inter-state conflict, regionalization as a process of consolidation and integration of some and various agents and entities of society and even of nation-states has been tried in different parts (regions) of the world among and between developed and developing countries. The process of regional integration and cooperation had been a necessity even among independent developed states such as the European countries especially after the colonization when they found themselves in similar situation of being import dependent of goods (energies and raw materials) and services and confronted with resolving conflict within and beyond their borders for the purposes of enhancing common fronts and coordinated policies. Regionalization is even more important in developing countries

40

which have been continuously faced with problems and challenges of different kinds and are trying to cultivate social and economic growth, peace and security atmosphere in the midst of poverty, unfavorable conditions in international trade, external debt, population explosion, and dependence on foreign aid and investments.

The formation of regional blocks or organizations to a considerable, substantial degree and in many ways had always been associated or linked to the promotion of peace, security, cooperation, and stability regardless of the nature and historical background of such regional integration or formation. Various examples and case studies of regional integration in different parts of the world can validate this claim. Regional Integration in Africa, in Latin America, in South Asia, in Southeast Asia and in Europe are just few of the many examples therein that would account that regional integration/cooperation and peace, security and stability building are but intertwined and very much linked to each other.

In the case of the Africa, the regional integration or cooperation movements gained momentum in post-independence period. The most significant and relevant is the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963, which enabled Africa to have one voice on issues which affected the continent as a whole such as colonial domination, decolonization, racism, and apartheid. In terms of peace, four main issues have been faced by the organization. The first one is the need to eradicate colonialism which was the major cause of conflict. The decolonization and the fight against racism and apartheid is one area in which OAU achieved humble successes and one of the manifestations of this

41

effort was the independence of Zimbabwe through the extension of logistical and material support of OAU which removed a major cause of conflict in the area. This is by standard is an actual achievement towards peace in Africa (ISSC, 1989; 19).

The second important issue in the efforts of OAU towards peace and security in the African region is the need to minimize internal conflict by encouraging cooperation among states thereby promoting mutual understanding, solidarity and unity. This objective of the organization is directly connected to the “peaceful settlement of disputes” which the OAU’s Commission on Meditation, Conciliation and Arbitration has been using in its attempts to solve inter-African disputes. The arrangements of a ceasefire between Algeria and Morocco in the border dispute between the two countries in 1963, and the attempt to settle the disputes between Ethiopia-Somalia and the Kenya-Somalia were among the major successes of OAU. The organization also managed to resolve the conflict between Ghana and her West African neighbors in 1965 and the most ambitious effort in terms of dispute settlement was the creation of a peace-keeping force in November 1981 to intervene in the conflict in Chad. In a way, the role of OAU in facilitating peace and security within its scope and territorial boundary as a regional organization has been positive (ISSC, 1989; 20).

The third objective of OAU towards peace and cooperation is the need to achieve a better quality of life for the people of Africa which was done through the promotion of economic and social development, the encouragement of inter-African economic cooperation and the promotion of mutual understanding. All these have been embodied in the “Lagos Plan of Action (LPA)”, which

42

was the first ever economic and social development plan designed for any regional organization in Africa. The guiding principles of LPA are the promotion of collective self-reliance, the reduction of external dependency and the pursuit of self-sustained development and LPA proposes to achieve all these through the strengthening sub-regional economic communities and the establishment of closer ties among themselves to achieve a more cohesive regional integration (ISSC, 1989; 21).

The last but not the least is the promotion of international cooperation on paying due regard to the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (ISSC, 1989; 19). The charter of OAU proclaims its respects for the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It also has a Charter of Human and Peoples Rights. Though the intentions of OAU as espoused in its charter are great, the human rights and the respect for democratic rights record of its member countries are far from satisfactory. However, OAU is so far doing its best to uplift this condition (ISSC, 1989; 22).

As for the Latin American case, the formation of “Contadora”6 as a regional body was considered to be the most important effort in trying to establish peace and settling conflicts that plaque the region. One of the main strategies of the organization in ushering in peace and security in the region is the creation of the “Document on Objectives”, which was released in the 9th of September 1983. This document is all about conflict

6 Contadora Launched in 1983, during the meeting of ministers for foreign relations of Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Panama at Contadora Island. The main strength of this regional grouping in the long term regional integration tradition of settling Latin American conflicts without extra-regional intervention. It emerged as a response to the inability of the Organization of American States (OAS) to settle peacefully the Central American Conflict. (p.42)

43

control via the decreased in the number of military personnel, decreased in the number of foreign military advisers and military bases, the non-utilization of Central American territory to launch armed attacks against its neighbors. Another example of Contadora’s efforts in propagating peace and security in Latin America was the pronouncement of the “Act of Contadora” in June 1984 which is a peace plan for the region. The following are aims of the said plan; (1) reduced tensions among parties; (2) provision of confidence measures; (3) indicated restrictions on military operations; (d) prohibition of the installation of new foreign military bases; (4) proposal for the elimination of the existing bases within a period of one year; (5) engaged not to support irregular military forces in the area; (6) limited arms transfer in the region; (7) provisions for the mechanism of control and verification with the creation of a permanent and autonomous commission; (8) the creation of bilateral commissions and strengthened existing ones; (9) reasserted the need for political pluralism, reconciliation and dialogue and respect for civil liberties and human rights in individual countries. In as far as its achievements are concerned, so far the Contadora through the above mentioned initiatives were able to offer a venue for all parties to discuss conflict resolutions to relieve conflict and contained tension and open military conflict. In terms of crucial points, through Contadora the global and militaristic approach towards Latin America has been weakened and as an organization it established intense and continuous negotiations among Central American countries, negotiations which were unthinkable before. It is also vital to stress the idea that Contadora has linked different pre-existing multilateral peace agreements and has established appropriate links between the different players and

44

actors responsible in the resolution of conflicts in the region. Most important of all, Conadora, forged the appropriate linkages and relations among regional security problems, local political issues, human rights situations, electoral and parliamentary procedures, and socio-economic issues. Thus far, just like any other regional organization, though Contadora has its own sets of failures, it is so far the most evident example of regional groupings in Latin America that has achieved modest success in fostering peace and security in the region (ISSC, 1989; 41-45).

As for the purposes of this paper, the dimension that is of vital interest for this thesis paper vis-à-vis regionalization processes is to account for the idea as to how regionalization first and foremost helps resolved and mitigate intra-regional conflict/wars and facilitates the realization of relative regional peace and security and how this regional peace and security being diffused extra-regionally (beyond the regional and inter-regionally). One way of providing clarity to all the questions posed is to explore and examine the dynamics and the consequences/impacts of regionalization.

E. Regionalization vis-à-vis Peace and Security: The Spill-Over Effects:

In the body of literature, several postulates accounts for the direct correlations between regionalization and the emergence of peace and security. Accordingly, the emergence of more integrated though diversified regional groupings would serve the international community good first and foremost because this will paved the way for the creation of mutually complementary and like minded

45

countries and a more stable and equitable relationship between countries will be established. Regionalization is assumed to be reinforcing force for peace-building processes, mechanism and instruments through regional confidence building and trust building efforts among states, transparency, regional disarmament and the promotion of mutual understanding, human rights, and the creation of effective political structures for democracy.

Moreover, regional peace and security is subject to geographical proximity Geographical proximity increases the number of interactions that can promote more interactions and linkages between countries; the closer countries are to each other, the greater the number of linkages through which peace, security and cooperation can be promoted or spread. Peace and security has a regional identity because threats travel more easily over short distances than longer ones. Yet, it enlarges its scope and descriptive capability by extracting a regional component also from other patterns of mobility of threats.

Regions are said to be direct and indirect receivers of internal and external security threats (violence, wars/conflicts), or regions themselves are producers of security threats. Peace has also a regional spatial dimension which emerges when peace diffuses at the regional level, when regions are the direct and indirect receivers of external measures conducive to peace, or when region themselves facilitate the attainment of security and peace (Tavares, 2007; 2-3).

The emergence of regional peace and security is dependent on the following factors which are said to be independent and mutually reinforcing, (Tavares, 2007; 32)

1. Level of regional integration

46

2. The different actors of peace and security3. Regional conflict pattern 4. Regional security pattern5. Regional peace pattern

The benchmarks on the other hand as to the effectiveness and emergence of regional peace and security can be put into context by accounting for the following indicators;

1. Peaceful settlement of disputes2. Economic and social development3. The creation of effective political institutions to allow citizens

to have a meaningful control over political processes which order their lives.

All these could be verified and be put into contexts in the case study of the paper which is on EU (European Union).

F. The Spill - Over Effects of Regional Peace and Security: Extra –Regional Diffusion of Peace and Security:

It is being assumed and claimed that the moment or once peace and security is established and created at the regional level, they are goods that can be boosted and magnified. This is what you call “spill-over effects” of regional peace and security which according to Lindberg is not originally planned at the very onset though happens the moment states in a particular region started cooperating with each other and this according to him has long term effects than expected.

The region stands out in security relations primarily as an effect of the diffusion of inter-state and even intra – state conflicts

47

or the securitization of state relations. During the pre-Westphalia era, the interactions between different states, political actors and entities are rare and this is one of the reasons why conflicts in whatever forms and types are for the most part localized and are considered to be part of the domestic affairs of a state rather than a concern of the region. However, prior to the Westphalia era, regional empires are already in existent as political structures in the global arena, though to extract the regional peace and security components from these regional empires was to some extent difficult and hard to discern because of two fundamental reasons. First and foremost, some of these so-called “regional empires” were characterized by an overly centralized and overpowering structure that stabilizes to some extent internal threats. The second factor is actually based on the fact that during this time, effects of external and even internal threats against regional empires are much more contained. In this case, threats are more localized than regionalized. Another important consideration that needs to be said here is the fact that, it is but obvious that the producers and receivers of threats did not possess some kind of regional personalities which all the more made peace and security issues domestic matters.

On the one hand, during the Westphalia era, the concept of sovereign state gained substantial consideration which in practical terms changed the whole peace and security configuration both at the national and regional level. Given that peace and security are concepts which are considered to be relational terms vis-à-vis different political actors and institutions including states, the concept of “inside” and “outside” the state in reference to peace and security threats have been broaden to encompassed

48

neighboring countries both in terms of how these threats are felt both within a state, in a region and within the region itself and in terms of resolving and addressing these threats both nationally and regionally. This change in the configuration of peace and security in relations to state and region was made possible because of the development of new warfare equipments and machineries (the introduction of gunpowder during this era) and permanent settlement of producers and receivers of threats from being nomadic to a more sedentary life.

Most and Starr, for instance, have shown that if a war will break out in a state’s border, the likelihood for diffusion is specifically higher among the countries in the region because these countries interact closely and intensively due to proximity and they are located geographically closer to each other (Tavares, 2007; 109-112). Hammastrom and Heldt have empirically and quantitatively proved using “network position” that the diffusion of conflicts and wars is higher among states which are territorially located near to each other. They are basically saying that conflicts, violence, and insecurity have spatial patterns. On the one hand, in 2004, Uppsala Database recorded about 30 armed conflicts 27 of which were intra- state, and 3 were internationalized intra- state conflicts of which accordingly majority of them were products of conflict diffusion on neighboring countries. The UN Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change supported this claim by saying, “today more than ever before, threats are inter-related and a threat to one is a threat to all”. The report asserts the idea that to prevent conflict or the outbreak of war within states, “we will have to build on the successes of regional organizations in developing strong

49

norms to protect governments from unconstitutional overthrown and to protect minority rights” (Tavares, 2007, 109-112). Regional organizations are actually considered to be a major and important component of the current international political landscape and relations vis-à-vis peace and security concerns. Indeed, intra-state conflicts may facilitate cross border conflicts as “spill over effects” and may as well cause other kinds of social unrests which are related to peace and security such as human trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal migration, or increased in the number or influx of asylum seekers and refugees and these are all regional peace and security concerns.

In the same manner that conflicts and wars can be diffused, peace and security can also be diffused. It is but being assumed that whatever is taking place in one state will have some impacts on the neighboring countries. The same logic applies to the diffusion of peace and security external to a state and regionally. Indeed, a peaceful and security friendly relationship among different political units which are in close proximity to each other and are located in a region would be beneficial for all and would make the proliferation and the diffusion of peace and security possible and sustainable to some extent both within and beyond the boundary of a region. Indeed, it is but apparent that peace and security have a spatial dimension and component which benefits the people and political units and spheres where their producers are based from.

G. The Regional and Extra Regional Diffusion of Peace and Security: Instruments and Strategies

50

The following are factors considered to be important in analyzing the spread and diffusion of peace and security within a particular and specific geographical area like a “region”;

Agents of Peace and Security Actors are the primordial agents of peace and security. There

are three kinds of actors; (a) individual; (b) national actors; and (c) regional actors. Individual actors are person who are using their personal credentials, resources and capacities in the name of peace and security. The working abilities of individual actors of peace and security are anchored upon activities such as arbitration, negotiation and mediation. As mediators, their primary concern is to bring parties together especially those that are in conflict with one another. In mediation they usually use negotiable positions and create certain ideas which would satisfy the needs of both parties under contention resulting to the resolution of the existing conflict between the said parties.

National actors on the other hand, are agents that operate within the jurisdiction of the state (the state itself is a national actor when it comes to issues concerning peace and security) though their actions have impact outside their boundaries and affects neighboring countries. In a more traditional sense, it has been claimed that the state is actually the single actor which is most effective in promoting external peace and security in a world of chaos and political turmoil and could assure the national order and security of its citizens. This is basically what you call “national security”7 which is the primary concern of a state. The cooperative 7 National Security refers hence to the public policy of maintaining the integrity and survival of the state through the use of political, economic, and military power and the exercise of diplomacy in times of peace and war.

51

ability of a state in terms of peace and security is twofold; (a) externally speaking, the state always tries its best to be in the best position of protecting and promoting its national interests by resorting to mechanisms such as balance of power, nuclear deterrence, alliances and war. In times of war or in cases of international disputes, a states can always assumed the role of mediators or as stabilizers in regional arenas; (b) internally the state is still believed to be the main provider of peace and security to its population, though in a globalizing world this is under contention and is debated internationally.

On the other hand, regional actors and one of those considered to be critical and important player in regional affairs are regional organizations that transcend the geographic and political boundaries of state centered initiatives towards the establishment of peace and security. According to Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, “regional arrangements and agencies can and have been empowered to handle intra-regional and extra-regional conflicts”. As argued in the 2nd Security Council Meeting (July 2004), “regional organizations offer comparative advantages to its members such as”;

Since members of a regional organization share the same cultural background, they are likely to be more in tune with a conflict at hand.

Personal relationships of leaders have developed in the past, which results in greater understanding of the country based and regional situations that could possibly result to fruitful dialogue based on personal trust.

52

Regional organizations could offer more timely response compared to bureaucratic global organization as the United Nations or foreign states.

Since members of a regional organization knows that they will be the ones to suffer more if conflicts or wars arise in their midst, they have the utmost stake in preserving regional peace, security, cooperation and stability.

Instruments of Peace and Security Regional peace and security instruments include policies,

methods or processes that facilitate the management of threats and/or the construction of peace, or national instruments which aim to usher in peace and security to the region. However, accordingly, the most effective regional mechanism in establishing peace and security in a region is through trade linkages and arrangements. Liberal internationalists like Montesquieu, Kant, Richard Cobden, Adam Smith, Norman Angell and the majority of free trade advocates claimed that, “an intrinsic and mutual relationship exists between peace and security and free trade and that the extinction of mercantilism is the most plausible way to attain permanent peace and security”. In a vacuum, liberal scholars claimed that countries who are involve in trading with other countries would less likely be engaged in conflict because they have their trade interests to protect and would rather opt for more cooperation and strike compromises with trading partners for mutual benefits. Another liberal scholar by the name of Blanton claims that, “trade could encourage the sharing of information and transparency between parties, create expectations of compliance and willingness across a group

53

of states which lead to a more expanded and cohesive expansion of economic ties”. Already in the 19th century, Wifredo Pareto argued that, “custom union and other system of closer trade relations could serve as means to the improvement of political relations and the maintenance of peace”. Mansfield further argued that, “preferential trade agreements inhibit political-military disputes and hostilities to occur between member and this to a greater extent contribute more to the creation of peace and security”.

Level of Regional Integration Regionalization or regional integration presupposes the

establishment of linkages and interdependence between and among states and this is precisely embodied through the harmonization of national policies. This is an attempt to reconcile disparities even diverging national practices and states goals vis-à-vis regional ones through the establishment of mutual interests and harmonized policies at the regional level. It is being assumed that the higher the level of regional integration among states within a specific region, the greater the probability that cooperation among states especially on issues pertaining to peace and security can be attained and sustained (Tavares, 2007; 126 – 160).

Regional Normative Engagement and Institutionalism

According to Finnemore and Sikkink, “norms are more likely regional than global”. Norms are but important

54

component of establishing regional peace and security because they serve as tools in facilitating regional values such as altruism, empathy, and ideational commitment. If norms are accepted and respected at the regional level by regional actors this would result to the institutionalization of regional practices. The adoption of common regional norms and practices is a positive phenomenon because this will facilitate some mechanisms which would legitimate or de-legitimate particular ideas and practices that are not within the agreed regional norms and standards of doing things. Most of all this will create a set of rules (formal and informal) which prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activities and shape expectations within and among regional actors. Russet, Oneal, and Davis in their study of militarized disputes and membership in international organizations during the 1950s – 1985 found out that, “share membership in any international or regional organizations substantially reduces the likelihood of inter-state conflict”. The justification behind this is the idea that political institutions such as regional organizations influence actors’ behavior by shaping their values, norms, interests, identities and beliefs (Tavares, 2007; 126 – 160).

Regional Identity Common identity within a particular region is anchored upon a

common perception that people residing in the same region is a community sharing similar principles of identification. Karl Deutsch is of those scholars who studied the concept of “community” with an international dimension to it. One of his main contributions is the idea of “sentimental relations”, - the process of attitudinal change that creates or culminates in such a

55

feeling of “we-ness”. According to him, “violent conflict can be avoided and prevented from taking place in regional and to a greater degree in international settings through the transnational integration of people amidst a growing feeling of commonness and mutual identification”.

Regional organizations are to a greater extent some kind of regional communities which exemplify and flaunted the idea that regional identity is a viable strategy in creating an environment wherein peace and security would flourish. Many scholars of international relations believe that regional integration and regional identity relate to each other in two complementary ways; (a) regional institutionalization lead to changes in the way people think and talk about themselves; (b) similarly, changes in the patterns of regional identity promotes new governmental strategies and conditions which are more viable for creating an environment of peace and security. Indeed regional identity and integration are processes that are intertwined. It is unlikely that a regional identity is associated to regions with low level of regional integration (Tavares, 2007; 126 – 160).

Chapter 5: A Case Study on the European Union (EU) as a Promoter of Regional and Extra Regional Peace and Security

In the case study on the EU (European Union), the proponent of the paper will basically analyze and study the dynamics and dimensions of these regional organizations as promoter and creator of peace and security in their specific geographical areas of concerns. In the process of analysis the

56

author will use the conceptual framework in trying to validate the paper thesis statement if indeed “regionalization is viable and potent alternative strategy as against to existing ones towards peace and security intra-regionally and extra –regionally through the creation, establishment, and functional operations of these regional organizations, and to a greater extent explore and examine if indeed, collectively, these processes of security and peace creation at the regional level and beyond could possibly lead to the proliferation of a more sustainable global peace and security in relative terms”.

In the case study on EU, the proponent of the paper will look at the following indicators and points of analysis in trying to account EU’s experience in propagating peace and security within their territorial jurisdictions. First and foremost, EU will be examined as to what descriptive category and level of regionalization/regionalism it belong and could be ascertained to. Then the writer will try to account for different agents and instruments that shape the peace and security dimensions of both organizations. Lastly, the author will try to examine the impact of regional peace and security beyond the geographically boundaries of EU - extra-regional dimension vis-à-vis regional peace and security. Moreover, for background purposes, the author will attempt to write a brief historical background on EU and will account for relevant information helpful in understanding the dynamics of the said regional organizations vis-à-vis peace and security.

57

Introduction“EU in itself is a peace project and a supremely

successful. It has underpinned the reconciliation and peaceful development of Western Europe over the last half century, helping to consolidate democracy and to assure prosperity”

The European Commission

(Tavares, 2006; 212)

EU is perhaps best defined as a “sui generis political actor, a unique institution that has developed a shared sovereignty in an increasing number of policy areas over the past 50 years”

Cameron Fraser (Cameron, 2007;

preface)

Many scholars of international relations, politics, economics, and European studies claim that the European Union is an epitome of a region in the world that experienced peace and security over 50 years now. Accordingly it was Jean Monnet who was the initiator and the one being considered to be the founding father of the European Community/European Union (EC/EU). His

58

idea of Europe is to be a region that is free from wars (inter-state and intra-state conflicts/wars). He actually looked for the factors and reasons that drove Europeans to fight each other and sought some solutions to transform this war/conflict prone landscape of Europe through the mechanism of regional cooperation and integration to a region of peace and security through which the interests of all parties concerned (European states and communities) will be served (Cini, 2003; 73). Indeed, the European regional integration experience primarily developed under the auspices of creating a European space characterized by sustainable peace and security which is somewhat a unique experience in the world.

Over time, EU as an international and regional entity gained a global status. Today, EU is considered to be the world’s largest internal market representing a quarter of world’s economic output and fifth in global trade. The internal market of EU is a magnet that attracts foreign investors. Because of this, EU neighbors would want to have share and access to this dynamic and affluent market of more or less 500 million citizens. Thus far, EU is an economic giant and so far currently the largest supplier of development, humanitarian and technical assistance to the third world as well (Cameron, 2007; 5).

As the leading provider of development and humanitarian assistance, EU is becoming a vital global player. In 2006, it was active in areas like Aceh in Indonesia, in Sudan and Congo in Africa, Rafah in the Middle East, Bosnia, and Macedonia in the Balkans and Georgia and Moldova in Eastern Europe (Cameron; 2007; 3). It has taken a lead also in the negotiations on issues like climate change (Kyoto Protocol), and on the establishment of the International

59

Criminal Court (ICC) in the face of strong opposition from the US. It seeks to expand its value system (i.e. promotion of democracy and human rights, abolition of the death penalty) and its own rules and norms in negotiation with third countries as well (Cameron, 2007; 5).

In lieu of the fact that EU has grown in size and stature both as a regional and a global player, it has so far taken more responsibility in maintaining sustainable regional peace and security and thus far attempting to extend this to its immediate neighboring countries. And this is so far the critical point that this case study will be focusing on

EU General Information: Facts and Figures

EU is composed of 27 member countries. Its first founding members include Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. In 1973, Denmark, Ireland, and United Kingdom joined EU. Greece joined in 1981, and Spain and Portugal followed in 1986. Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU club in 1995. In 2004, EU has its ever biggest acceptance of new member states and this include, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The latest countries that became members of EU were Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 (EU Commission, 2007; 5).

EU is both a political and economic body. As a political entity EU has both supra-national and inter-governmental dimensions. Its important institutions include the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the

60

European Council, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. On the other hand, as an economic entity, EU has it own currency, - the EURO and EU is the biggest internal market in the world today (Cini, 2003; 131-192).

EU has 66,000 km of coastline that influences the climate of its member states. The territory of the EU consists of the combined territories of its 27 member states. However, the territory of the EU is not the same as that of Europe, as significant parts of the continent, such as Switzerland, Norway and European Russia, are outside the EU, and some overseas territories are part of the EU while not being geographically part of Europe. The EU's member states cover a combined area of 4,422,773 sq. km. (1,707,642 sq mi). The total territory of EU is the seventh largest territory in the world by area. The landscape, climate and economy of EU are heavily influenced by its long coastline, which is 65,993 km. (41,006 mi) long. The EU has the second longest coastline, after Canada. The combined member states of the EU's share land borders with 21 non-member states for a total of 12,441 km. (7,730 mi), the fifth longest border in the world (Wikipedia Portal).

EU is one of the most densely populated regions in the world with an estimated 114 people per km². The combined population of all 27 member countries is approximately 500 million. Eighty percent of EU citizens live in urban areas and a third live in sub-urban areas of over a million people. EU is home to more global cities than any other region in the world. EU has 23 official languages include, Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish,

61

Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. All important EU documents and legislation are translated into all of the 23 official languages. Aside from the 23 official languages, there are about 150 regional and minority languages spoken by up to 50 million people (Wikipedia Portal).

The EU is a secular body, with no formal connections to any religion and no mention of religion in any current or proposed treaty though Christianity seems to the dominant religion in Europe, and thus in EU per se. Christianity in EU can be roughly divided into Roman Catholicism, a wide range of Protestant churches (especially in northern Europe) and Eastern Orthodoxy (in south eastern Europe). Other religions such as Judaism and Islam are also represented in the EU population. Supporters of European integration often appeal to a shared European historical/cultural heritage, typically including Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, the Feudalism of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, 19th century Liberalism and (sometimes) negative elements such as the World Wars. European values are assumed to be grounded in this shared heritage (Wikipedia Portal).

Historical Background and Perspective behind the Creation and the Establishment of EU: The Fundamental Principles and Values that Governed EU and the Basis and Nature of

European Regional Integration

“Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure and so free. The violence of the first half of the 20th century has given way to a period of peace and stability unprecedented

62

in European history. The creation of the European Union is central to this development”.

European Security Strategy, December 2003

(Cameron, 2007; 6)

Historically speaking, Europe was undeniably a region dominated by wars and conflicts. The number and magnitude of conflicts in Europe from 16th century until the end of 2nd World War were enormous. Based on the data produced by the Correlates of War Project and the Uppsala Database, out of 75 wars waged in between 1815 and 1993, 31 of them were actively participated by one or more European states and 41 of these wars, at least one European state was directly involved. Over time, in between 1500 – 1900 and with a broader picture, scope and varieties of wars and conflicts that took place, out of 120 million people casualties, 93 million died in European wars. Adding to this, Europe was a haven of genocide activities during the 20th

century; Turkey (1900-1918), Nazi Germany (1933 -1945), Tito’s Yugoslavia, and Poland after the 2nd World War (Tavares, 2006; 191).

This problematic, chaotic and war prone situation of Europe inspired and motivated the founding fathers of the European Union like Jeanne Monnet in crafting, inventing and creating new and innovative mechanisms, processes and institutions that will pave the way for peace and security to reign in Europe. And this motivation and inspiration become the ever sustaining force and the fundamental goal in the creation of the European Union.

63

The rationale behind the creation of the European Union (EU) was centered towards the craftsmanship of peace and conflict resolution inherently existent in Europe since time immemorial. The Schuman Declaration of 1950 actually was aimed at building a peaceful and united Europe in a gradual and incremental manner. However, prior to the creation of EU, towards the end of the 2nd

World War, regional politics was conducted always in reference to the sovereignty vested upon states within its territorial boundaries. This made the inter-linkages of European states at the regional and supra-national levels almost impossible. However, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the technological breakthrough that swept throughout Europe, some form of regional cooperation flourished in the area of trade. Like for example Sweden and Norway had a custom union from 1874 to 1900, and from 1819-1834, various preferential trade negotiations flourished in Central Europe as the Prussian Custom Union, the Central German Custom Union, the Bavarian Wuerttembergian Custom Union and the Deutscher Zollverein, which consisted of Prussia, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Hessen-Darmstadt, Hessen-Kassel and Saxony. On the other hand, in 1865, a Latin Monetary Union composed of France, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium was created of which these countries agreed to have a common standard in terms of the value of their currency/coinage (Tavares, 2006; 195).

Since 1954, after the 2nd World War, there is a radical shift in the political context of Europe. There was an enhanced institutionalization process of cognitive structures and the slow but sure deepening of mutual trust, confidence, tolerance and responsiveness among European states. Diversity of security and visions and conflicting national interests of the past became

64

mutually reinforcing, complementary and cohesive rather than competitive and diverging perspectives. The institutionalization of Europe was due to two converging factors, (1) its strong military nature, and (2) proliferation of regional economic and political institutions. The military nature of European institutionalization embodies the creation of security and military arrangements i.e. Brussels Treaty (1948) and (North Atlantic Treat Organization) NATO (1949), which are said to be the symbol of the security architecture of Europe. In the formative years of NATO’s formation it was composed of 10 European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and UK) plus Canada and the United States. It deliberated the effort to protect and shield Europe from Soviet communist influence and perceived attacked. NATO is said to be one of the regional institutional peace and security mechanisms that strongly reflects the cohesiveness, cooperation and interdependence of European countries (Tavares, 2006; 203).

After three (3) decades, a new security framework was enacted in Europe in 1975, - the Conference for Security and Cooperation (CSCE) in Europe, in Helsinki, Finland. This ratified the acts known as the “Helsinki Accords”8 signed by European nations and the United States and Canada (Tavares, 2006; 203). CSCE aimed at promoting peace, prosperity, and justice in Europe. Its areas of concern include early warning and conflict prevention, crisis management, post-conflict rehabilitation, and elections observations. Today, there are around 56 member countries of CSCE including European states, all former Soviet

8

65

Union member states, the United States and Canada (Tavares, 2006; 203).

Moreover, the second important factor in the institutionalization process of Europe in reference to regional peace and security was the establishment of economic and political European institutions which could be traced back to the enactment of the Treaties of Rome (1957). Several formal regional European institutions were created and established and these include the Council of Ministers and the High Authority to supervise the production of coal and steel among members of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952; the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) in 1957; the Council of Ministers, the Parliament, the European Commission; the Court of Justice; and the Court of Auditors (Cini, 2003; 4-5).

The proliferation of EU institutions in many ways was instrumental in diffusing peace and security within EU and beyond (its neighbors). This led to the change in the distribution of power in Europe (acceding power to supra-national entities from the national level); and the intensification of the institutionalization9 processes in the region through adherence to common norms, values, and principles, and the harmonization of national policies. This resulted in the acceleration of social and political mobilization across, within and beyond borders and networks. One of the prominent consequences of such changes in the political dynamics and landscape of Europe was the emergence of civil society movement intertwined with the development of EU as it moved towards being

9 Institutionalization is the process by which a set of formal decision-making mechanisms is set-up in order to initiate, foment, or implement common policies (Tavares; 2006; 200).

66

a “European community”. These two became the most relevant agents of peace of peace and security in Europe in view of their beliefs in the essence and practice of democratic norms and forms of governance; adherence to the rule of law; respect for human rights; separation of powers; and human (social) solidarity (Tavares, 2006; 198).

The high degree of regional institutionalization through the creation of supra-national institutions based on adherence and loyalty to common norms, values and rules and harmonization of national policies in various sectors is one of the reason behind the proliferation and endogenous growth of peace and security and enhanced cooperation and stability in Europe more particularly among and between EU member countries. Other processes which are instrumental in the diffusion and promotion of peace and security at the regional level are also existent. One is the growing convergence of national policies and the codification of common policies and rules such as enlargement, external relations, common agricultural policy, internal market and financial services, employment and social policy, competition policy, regional policy and structural funds, or information society and telecommunications. Using a functionalist perspective, common policies and institutional harmonization have direct correlation to peace and security since they create functional entities that bridge deeper link, interdependence and enhanced inter-personal interactions among and between politicians, civil servants and people into adopting less nationalistic and more regional cohesive cooperation resulting to enhanced and strengthened cooperation and understanding and the proliferation of peace and security both at the state and regional levels (Tavares; 2006; 205).

67

The most remarkable manifestation of European regionalization vis-a-vis the promotion of peace and security at the regional level has been exemplified in the realm of economic regional integration. The process of economic cooperation and integration started with the Treaty of Rome (1957) via the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) as a common market. This common market paved the way for the free trade of goods and services, sets common external tariffs among member states, and also allowed for the free movement of capital and labor across countries and borders. After a decade, this common market was transformed to an economic union, characterized by free trade of goods and services, common external tariffs among member states, free mobility of labor and capital and delegated fiscal spending responsibilities to supra-national agencies. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one example of fiscal coordination associated to the European economic union. Another significant manifestation of the European economic integration is the establishment of the monetary union. This involves the creation of a central monetary authority, which determines the monetary policy for the entire union. This European economic integration was further deepen when the Maastricht Treaty (1991) made possible the implementation of a single European currency, - the “EURO” which became operational in 2002. (Cini, 2003; 29-37).

During this intensive economic integration of EU, the magnitude of intra and inter-state conflict dropped dramatically. All inter-state aggressions came to an end and the existing intra-state conflicts in Ireland, Basque Country, and Corsica did not have any spill over effects. Indeed, Europe was able to make a successful

68

turn-over from a “violent prone region” to a region where the “absence of violence” was the most notable pattern. Indeed, the formation of EU “is a unique experience of peaceful integration and cooperation between former rivals and competitors”. The process of forging unity was central to the economic and political history of Europe. The achievements of EU to a greater extent are remarkable. Peace and stability have been consolidated; growth has been fostered and the well being of EU citizens has substantially increased. In effect, EU becomes a global player with material and political capacity to manage conflict and to promote peace and security.

Regional Peace and Security and the European Union

A. Level and Categorical Description of EU Regional Integration

The European Union (EU) to a greater degree is considered to be a “Zone of Peace and Security”. It qualifies for a pluralistic security society. It has relatively affluent societies and communities, presence of positive peace, and has a high degree of regional integration. As an agent of peace and security within its territorial boundaries, it gained the status of an important global player both as an economic player and most of all as an entity that promotes peace and security beyond its borders.

69

B. EU Instruments and Agents in Promoting Regional Peace and Security

a. The Enlargement Policy: “The union is founded on the principles of liberty,

democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the member states”.

Article 6 (1), Treaty of EU

“Any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 6 (1) may apply to become member of the union”.

Article 49, of the Treaty of EU

The “Enlargement Policy” of EU basically refers to the accession policies and rules of the Union which need to be followed and obeyed by states which are opting for EU membership. These membership codified rules which are contained in the “acquis communitairer” and are actually summarized in the “Copenhagen Criteria” state that,

“achieve stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities; the existence of a functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressures and market forces within the Union;

70

the ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union”

(Cameron, 2007; 63)

For over a half century now, EU has pursued two parallel processes, - deeper regional integration and enlargement (accommodating new member-states). As a result, EU has a total of 27 member states today and a population of approximately 500 million citizens. The expanding membership of EU is part of the whole development process since the beginning. The founding fathers of EU were confident to open the door of opportunity to non-member European states to have the chance to be part of the EU community first and foremost because they believed that this can be one of the many ways on EU response to the changing political landscape, promote economic growth and solidarity, strengthen democratic forces in countries emerging from repressive or dictatorial governments (EU Commission, 2007; 4).

In as far enlargement is concern, the last two EU enlargements that took place in 2004 and 2007 from Central and Eastern European countries and the Mediterranean have proven a considerable success though there were criticisms. First and foremost it was considered to be successful in view of the fact that, it fuelled the broadening and strengthening of the European economy through the expansion of the internal market which facilitated for the creation of new business opportunities, fast growing economies, and economies of scale into the single European market. The most relevant reason, for the purposes of

71

this paper, is that the last two EU enlargements to a greater extent was successful because it facilitated for the expansion of the areas of peace, security, stability, cooperation, rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and democracy in the European continent (EU Commission, 2007; 1). Indeed, the enlargement policy of EU is an instrument which in many ways are shaping and paving the way towards the creation of a European community which is not only wealthy economically speaking, but a community of values and a family of European democratic countries dedicated to the endeavor of promoting peace and security, freedom, prosperity, cooperation and social justice, while preserving its inherent diversity as a region (EU Commission, 2007; 5).

Moreover, the EU Commission will continue to further improve the quality of the enlargement process. The enlargement policy will put more emphasis on the fundamental issues of state-building, good governance, administrative and judicial reform, rule of law, reconciliation, compliance with International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), civil society development and the enhancement of the degree of “people to people” contact (EU Commission, 4; 2007).

Thus far, as an instrument of promoting regional peace and security, the EU Enlargement Policy indeed has contributed much to the establishment of peace, security, stability and democracy throughout the European continent. It provided concrete benefits and advantages to EU member states in terms of enhanced trade, investment, and economic growth. In many ways, the enlargement policy of EU provided avenues for the union to gain a global recognition as a vital international player both in geo-politics and economics.

72

b. Neighborhood Policy

“The European Neighborhood Policy is a new policy that invites our neighbors to the East and to the South to share in the peace, stability, and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union and which aims to create a ring of friends around the borders of the new enlarged EU. We share a past and many common interests with our southern and eastern neighbors, from trade to cultural exchange, from migration issues to environmental cooperation. Across the Mediterranean, ENP will reinforce and build on the cooperation that we have developed over nearly 10 years of the Barcelona Process. For our neighbors in the east, ENP shows that we are moving towards a new and closer relationship, so as to avoid the emergence of new dividing lines on our continent. ENP will be a key vehicle for promoting European values and sharing the fruits of the EU’s enlargement to the benefit of our citizens and our neighbors”.

EU Commissioner Benita Ferrero- Walder

“The aim of ENP is to avoid dividing lines on the continent and deepen relations between EU and its neighbors. The ENP is not about enlargement but it is about mutual interest in supporting reforms and modernization. Each country has its own agreed Action Plan that reflects its needs and priorities”.

73

EU Commissioner Benita Ferrero – Waldner(Cameron; 2007; 109)

EU from the very onset has been trying to foster working and cooperative relations with its immediate neighbors. And in as far as this objective is concerned beyond the borders of EU the Commission is currently on the process of building a working and friendly relations with its neighbors in the East and the South. This is has been encapsulated in the Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and in the Euro – Mediterranean Partnership (Euromed). Both initiatives are instruments used to build EU diplomatic relations with its neighbors (Cameron, 2007, 107-126). ENP encompasses Jordan, Israel, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Lebanon and Algeria. ENP is a byproduct of the “2003 Wider Europe Initiative” (Cameron, 2007; 109). ENP is a new and a dynamic policy that aims to bring political and economic stabilization, modernization, and democratization to EU’s neighbors in the East, South and the Mediterranean region. The fundamental objective of ENP is to strengthen and promote stability, security, and well-being of EU’s immediate neighbors. It is designed to avoid divergence between the new enlarged EU and its neighboring countries. Through ENP, EU extends to its neighbors the chance to be part and to join EU initiated activities that somehow in the long run will promote greater political, peace and security, economic, social and cultural cooperation. Most of all, ENP is said to be a venue through which the so-called “European Security Strategy” that aims to build and create an atmosphere of peace ad security within the region (EU) and beyond (EU neighbors) (Cameron, 2007; 109).

74

As a dynamic policy it cuts across and intersects along several critical policies of EU namely, foreign, security, development, enlargement, and trade policies. However, the foreign and security policy dimension which aims to establish peace, security and stability in the eastern and southern borders of EU through interdependence is quite the most prominent. Cooperation towards the resolution of regional conflicts, fight against common threats like terrorisms, organized crime and illegal immigration are among the most important objectives of ENP. ENP as a policy tool presupposes the perceived role of EU as a promoter of democracy and a catalyst in propagating political, economic and social reforms; good governance; economic development; the strengthening of the civil society; the implementation of the rule of law; and respect for human rights in neighboring countries. In the economic sphere, ENP aims to create an economic community characterized by the free movement of goods, services or the creation of Free Trade Area (FTA), with the possibility of expansion from a bilateral FTA to a multi-lateral one (Lippert, 2007; 3-4). Thus far, ENP is calling for the creation of the so-called “ring of well organized governments” both in the south and east of EU (Lippert, 2007; 2-3). The enlargement dimension of ENP follows the path of “integration through convergence” of the neighboring states to the EU system.

Under ENP, the relations between EU and its neighboring countries are based on mutual commitment to common principles revolving around concepts such as the rule of law, good governance, the respect, for human rights including minority rights, the promotion of good neighborly relations, and the principles of market economy and sustainable development. These are

75

consummated via short term instruments, i.e. “Action Plan”, and long term legal framework, i.e. “New Agreements”, and through the so-called “substantive offers” of EU, i.e. “Action Points” (Lippert, 2007; 5-6).

Accordingly, the most vital among the short term instruments of ENP is the Action Plan. This “action plan” is developed between the EU and the corresponding ENP partner(s) country. The action plan is specific to the needs of the concerned ENP country. However these action plans in general, follow some commitment guidelines. The first set of guidelines is anchored on the commitment to common values and to the goals of EU’s foreign and security policy which requires the facilitation of the following critical factors (Lippert, 2007; 5-6);

Strengthening democracy and the rule of, judicial reform, and the fight against corruption and organized crime.

Respect for human rights and individual freedoms Support for the development of civil society The fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction. Cooperation on conflict resolution, strengthening of

international law and international organizations.

The second set of guidelines is directed towards neighbors closer to EU which includes the following crucial factors (Lippert, 2007; 5-6);

Political dialogue, dialogue on reform and the transformation of ENP countries

Trade and economic reforms The social consequences of reform policies

76

Justice and home affairs The regional dimension of neighborhood policy, especially

with respect to energy, transport, environment, information society, research and development, and other infrastructural measures.

Promoting people to people exchange

The long term legal framework of ENP (“new agreements”) builds upon the existing relations of EU and its neighbors. Aside from the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs), there are no new agreements so far developed. To facilitate some motivations for EU neighbors to be more active and committed to ENP, EU offers some sort of incentives for cooperation coined as “Action Points” (Lippert, 2007; 8-9). In as far as these action points are concerned, the Commission proposed the following agenda;

Enhancing Trade, Investment, and Economic Development

Gradual integration of ENP countries to EU internal market is one of the most important offers of EU. Through this process, there would be a deepening of FTA between EU and its neighbors which would entail the adoption of EU technical requirements and standards through legal harmonization, regulation, adaptation and mutual recognition of norms and standards by the neighbors. This

77

deepened FTA will to a greater extent require the ENP countries to comply with the regulatory policy of EU in so far as they relate to trade and investment. As a consequence, this mechanism may result to the formation of an “economic community” composed of EU and ENP partner countries (Lippert, 2007; 9).

Facilitating Mobility and Promotion of People to People Exchange

The attainment of internal security is one of the dimensions critical to EU – ENP relations. Issues such as intensified cooperation on border protection, controlling legal immigration and preventing illegal immigration, and fight against people trafficking, organized crime, money laundering, financial and economic crimes are matters of concern. On the other hand, the expansion and strengthening of civil society contacts through different mechanisms are priorities as well of ENP. These are manifested through education and youth exchange programs, mobility of scholars and the enhancement of contacts between enterprises, civil society organizations, trade unions, leaders of cultural organizations and experts in different fields (Lippert, 2007; 15).

Strengthening Political Cooperation

Political cooperation between EU and ENP countries are evidently channeled towards the enhanced foreign and security policy and cooperative crisis management between the said parties. ENP facilitates an open and strengthened political dialogue in areas of fighting terrorism, non-proliferation of weapon of mass

78

destruction and the resolution of regional conflicts. Conflicts in the neighborhood areas between ENP countries (Moldova and Ukraine; Israel and its neighbors; Georgia and Azerbaijan) and in ENP countries (Moldova and Georgia) are being prioritized. In practical terms, initiatives such as conflict prevention, crisis management, the exchange of information, joint training and exercises, and possible participation in EU-led crisis management operations are being encouraged strongly to take place between and among EU and ENP countries (Lippert, 2007; 11-12).

Strengthening Regional Cooperation

The dimension of regional cooperation of ENP is anchored upon the security policy of EU. In as far as initiatives are concerned so far there is a multi-lateral forum only for those ENP countries in the Mediterranean region via the Barcelona Process and the Euro Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). There is none for ENP countries in the Black Sea region and this is now the focus of extensive regional cooperation of ENP. In this regard, the Commission proposed the so-called “Black Sea Synergy”, which recognizes two goals; (1) strengthening cooperation within the region (bottom – up) and (2) for EU to have more visibility in the region. Regionalization in the Baltic Sea is thus far an interesting phenomenon both to new and old member states of EU (Lippert, 2007; 12-13).

Thematic Dialogues and Observer Status

In the process of strengthening ENP, a proposal has been forwarded calling for the expansion and acceptance of bi and multi-lateral dialogues in areas of cooperation and integration between

79

EU and ENP countries. The following areas has been identified as loci for further regional cooperation and integration; energy, transport, the environment, rural development, information society, research cooperation, public health, financial services, border management, migration and maritime affairs. Accordingly, initiative could be broaden by including foreign, security, and integration policy issues through special multi-lateral consultations at the ministerial level. Another radical proposition in trying to strengthen ENP is the granting of “observer status” to ENP countries at different EU institutions linked to political and other issues of concerned. As an observer, one can participate in the regular meetings of EU bodies but could not vote (Lippert, 2007; 16-17).

Thus far, ENP is a tool used by EU to fill in the gap of its need for a more cohesive e and established cooperation with its immediate neighbors. As a policy tool, ENP does not only try to establish a functional cooperative relations with EU’s neighbors but it wants to have a bearing and influence on the political dynamics and processes of EU’s neighboring countries by spreading its own values and principles as a regional organization. These values and principles include democracy, market economy and responding to challenges such as crime, health, the environment and terrorism (Cameron, 2007; 109). These things are but the criteria and ingredients in promoting peace and security regionally and beyond.

i. EU Position on the Middle East Peace Process

The attainment of a viable peace in the middle is one of the main interest and pre-occupation of EU. As a regional organization,

80

EU aims for the implementation of a two –state solution for the Middle East Peace Process leading to a final and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on democratic, viable, peaceful, and the recognition of the sovereignty of the Palestinian state living side by side within a secure and recognized borders while enjoying a normal relations with Israel (Rhein, 1997). These include;

A fair solution to the complex issue of Jerusalem and a just, viable, realistic and agreed solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees.

A solution in the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

This stand and position of the EU vis-à-vis the Middle East peace process was first initiated by the European Council in the 1980 Venice Declaration and has been reiterated subsequently in the Summits, General Affairs and External Relations Council Meetings (Rein, 1997). The following are further initiatives led by EU that concretely supported the efforts of the peace process in the Middle East;

The “Venice Declaration of 13 June 1980 ” - established

the right to existence and to security of all states in the Middle East region, including Israel, and justice for all parties for all people, which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

The “ Essen Declaration of 1994 ” - stated that Israel should enjoy special status in its relations with the EU on the basis of reciprocity and common interest.

81

The “Berlin Declaration of 24 March 1999” - introduced the notion of a viable Palestinian state by saying that “the European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable, and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel’s security and Israel’s acceptance as an equal partner in the region”.

The Seville Declaration of 22 June 2002 - explicitly expected solution to the conflict. A settlement can be achieved through the negotiation, and only through negotiation. The objective is an end to the occupation and the early establishment of a democratic, viable, peaceful and sovereign State of Palestine, on the basis of the 1967 border, if necessary with minor adjustment agreed by the parties. The end result should be two states living side by side within secure and recognized borders enjoying normal relations with their neighbors. In this context, a fair solution should be found to the complex issue of Jerusalem, and a just, viable, and agreed solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees.

In June 2000, EU Council adopted a “common strategy” that aims to address the Middle East crisis committing itself to support both the Israelis and the Palestinians in fulfilling and implementing the provisions and contents of the peace agreements and to look for ways how the Barcelona Process can help in paving for the peace, security, stability and prosperity to flourish in the Middle East. On the basis of the said strategy, the General Affairs

82

and External Relations Council (GAERC), composed of ministerial representatives (Foreign Ministers in the case of CFSP {EU Common Foreign and Security Policy} together with the European Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative for CFSP), regularly adopts conclusions, common positions, and joint actions on issues related to the Middles East Peace Process. For instance, a joint action was conducted in 2005 where EU monitored mission to oversee the implementation of the Israeli/Palestinian agreement on operation of the Rafah border crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Cameron, 2007; 40-44).

In practical terms, a concrete support of EU to the peace and security processes taking place in the Middle East was the appointment of a Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process (EUSR). The appointment took place in 1996 and from then on, the representative assumed an inter alia role supporting actions and initiatives leading to a final settlement of the conflict; to facilitate cooperation on security issues; to contribute to the implementation of agreements reached between the parties and to represent the EU in the “Quartet”10 at envoys level. EU institutions are also very much involved in the Middle East Peace Process. For instance, the EU Commission is largely involved in the creation and implementation of CFSP that supports the efforts towards peace and security in the Middle East through its active participation in the “quartet”. It was also given the major task of preparing and implementing assistance program for the region. Together with the Presidency, the Commission adapted the primordial role in heading up the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee of international donors to the Palestinian Authority and in international 10 Quartet is composed of representative from the EU, USA, the UN and Russia

83

donor’s conference for the peace process. The European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) on the other hand, is the one managing the humanitarian aid being extended to the victims of the Middles East conflict, while the European Community (EC) to Israel is responsible for the official management of EU relations with Israel. The EC Technical Assistance Office of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (ECTAO) is in-charge of the management of the donor assistance programme to the Palestinian. ECTAO has also a diplomatic function by virtue of the fact that EU member states are well represented in local diplomatic community in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The European Parliament on the one hand plays a vital role in terms of determining foreign policy position with regards to the distribution and allocation of important technical assistance and financial support programs to the Middle East (Hill and Smith, 2005).

EU feels the need to be involved in resolving the crisis in the Middle East through political, economic, humanitarian and security issues whenever necessary. It is the largest donor of mix assistance of emergency support of medium term institution building measures and support for the reform process to the Palestinian and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. EU is also the largest trading partner and the main economic, scientific, and research partner of Israel. The union is also a major political and economic partner of Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The following are EU support initiatives on the on-going “Middle East Peace Process” (Rein, 1997);

EU participation in the “quartet”, including the political, financial, and human resources support provided by the

84

Community in 2005 and 2006 to the Quartet Special Envoy for Disengagement, James Wolfensohn;

EU bilateral relations with Israeli and the Palestinian Authority (on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation Organization {PLO}) which are underpinned by the Association or Interim Agreements and by European Neighborhood Policy Action Plans adopted in 2005;

The facilitation of regional dialogue through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Barcelona Process), which remains the only multi-lateral forum outside the United Nations where all the conflict parties meet;

Confidence –building measures, including electoral observation activities funded by the European Commission; free and fair elections are an essential step to guarantee the success of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Further confidence-building measures include EU monitoring of the proper implementation of the Israeli/Palestinian agreement on operation of the Rafah border crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Egypt and Community assistance to help build up PA border control capacities.

Theo organization of trilateral policy dialogues with participation of the European Commission and Parties to transport, energy and trade.

Assistance aimed at creating the condition for peace, security, stability and prosperity in the region;

o To promote Palestinian economic, social, and security sector reforms, which includes tackling governance issues;

85

o To provide humanitarian assistance to refugees and;o To bring together civil society actors from Israel, the

occupied territories and neighboring countries via the EU Partnership for Peace Programme.

ii. European Mediterranean Partnership/Barcelona Process

“Rapprochement between people through social, cultural, and human partnership aimed at encouraging understanding between cultures and exchanges between civil societies”.

The Fundamental Goal of Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

Though obscure and very much criticized by many, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Euro-Med) offers both the Mediterranean and EU the enormous leeway to develop a symbiotic cooperative relationship and cooperation. The potentialities of the Euro-Med are extensive and these include peace, security, stability, economic development, improved governance and communication, technical, social, cultural and environmental cooperation. It represents a wider mechanism for public diplomacy initiatives on issues within the economical, political, environmental, social and cultural spheres (Aghrout, 1997; 307-328).

Under the Euro-Med framework or what is popularly known today as the “Barcelona Process”, EU works in a bilateral manner

86

with its partner countries namely, Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. The 1995 Barcelona Declaration which facilitated for the creation of the Euro-Med signed by 27 signatory polities aims to create a new “zone of peace and prosperity” within the territorial bounds of the Mediterranean Sea. Under this process, three policy areas are considered to be most relevant and important and these include, politics and security; economics and financial relations; social, cultural and human affairs including immigration (Gillespie, 1997).

However, given its potential, the Barcelona Process needs a lot of strengthening and attention. It has been criticized thoroughly because of its shortcomings and loopholes. First among the many problems is the slow negotiations and ratification of bi-lateral agreements between the Mediterranean countries and EU. Second, the Southern Mediterranean governments are not always supportive to EU’s adherence and promotion of human rights and civil society. Third, economic reforms in the partner countries are too slow and need some acceleration. In view of the not so promising and very compromising state of the Euro-Med, the Commission proposed some measures to strengthen it. Some of the most important proposed measures include the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum; the adoption of the Euro-Mediterranean Charter of Peace and Stability; the move towards a new and more integrated association of Euro-Mediterranean states, and enhanced public awareness on what is Euro-Med (Aliboni, 1992).

Indeed, there is much to be done for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership/Barcelona Process to be credible and to fulfill its vision

87

of creating a “zone of peace and security; cooperation and stability” in the Mediterranean region vis-à-vis EU. To quote,

“Active measures will have to be taken to reinforce links between the Union and its Mediterranean Partners. The stable development of the southern Mediterranean rim is a challenge of ever increasing proportions”.

European Commission Agenda 2000

c. European Identity

“The tem European combines geographical, historical, and cultural elements which all contribute to the European identity. The shared experience of proximity ideas, values, and historical interaction cannot be condensed into a simple formula, and I subject to review by each succeeding generation. It is neither possible nor opportune to establish now the frontiers of the European Union, whose contours will be shaped over many years to come”.

The European Commission(Tavares, 2006; 219)

Common identity as a tool towards building peace and security was first suggested by Karl Deutsch. The literature states that occurrence of war and conflict is less likely between states and people that have a common and shared perception of identity. It has been noted in International Relations literature that a common identity can facilitate easy and more promising negotiations,

88

diplomatic relations, and compromises among conflicting interests, provide a basis for shared interests and thus create a more solid basis for political stability and from there new social identities are created around common agreed attributes, norms, and principles of legitimate behaviors and actions (Tavares, 2006; 218-219).

Concurrently, EU is putting so much effort in creating an “EU Identity”11 to bridge the gap between its citizens and its institutions. This initiative of creating a sense of “we-ness” among Europeans gained momentum and institutional dimension via the formulation and enactment of the Treaty of the European Union and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which was proclaimed at the Nice Summit in December 2000, stating “that Europeans have a common and shared values related to the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law”. The primary objective of the Treaty of the European Union is to introduce the idea of Union citizenship underlying the discrete attempt of transcending EU to a political community which aims to bring EU citizens and its institutions closer. In more practical terms, this attempt of creating a European identity was reinforced by the creation of symbols such as the EU flag, standardization of passport, an unofficial anthem, and the most significant of all these symbolic artifacts on the idea of “us” is the EURO notes and coins. (Tavares, 2006; 217-218). The creation of EU symbols and supra-national institutions in reference to the continuous efforts of forging 11 There are two valid transversal identities in Europe, - the European Identity and EU Identity. The European Identity is a loose identity founded on somewhat vague concepts of classicism, democracy, empiricism and Christianity. It is a voluntary identity that has no territorial indispensability. EU Identity is based on the objective of bringing EU institutions and its people closer. It is a political mandatory identity that comprises the citizens of the 27 member states of EU. These identities in many cases overlap and mutually reinforces each other (Tavares; 2006; 218).

89

an EU identity has achieved a relative success. This is because EU citizens day by day felt attached to one another than before.

d. EU Security and Defense Policy and Foreign Policy

EU attempts to embrace a more global perspective towards consolidating intra and extra regional peace and security. One of the most important instruments being employed is “Foreign Policy”12. EU foreign policy was born out of the need among the member states of the European Economic Community to consult with each other on issues and concerns that are external to EU but has direct and indirect impact on EU at the same time. Another important factor that propelled EU to come up with a common foreign and even security policy was the collapse of communism and the reunification of Germany with the aim of becoming a forceful global actor. In 1969, the six founding members of EU during the Hague Summit made a declaration which called for a “united Europe” capable of handling responsibilities for its own future. This led to the creation of the so-called “External Policy Cooperation (EPC)” in the 1970s, a consultative structural mechanism which called for a periodic meeting between diplomats and ministers which was further developed over time. The main aim of EPC is to facilitate a venue for the regular exchange of information and periodic meetings between ministers and senior officials on international affairs (Tavares, 2006; 223).

The Maastricht Treaty lifted up the aims and goals of EPC via the codification of a common foreign and security policy with the objective of (a) safeguarding the common values of EU; (b) strengthening the security of the Union and its members; (c) 12 Foreign Policy is usually defined as the external relations and actions of a state.

90

preserving and strengthening international security; (d) promoting international cooperation; (e) developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law. In June 1999, the members of the European Council in Cologne called for the creation of “common security and defense policy” to respond to international crisis. This European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is a policy instrument within CFSP which was redefined in Council Summit in Helsinki (1999) and Feira (2000) by putting military and civil dimensions to it. The civil aspect of ESDP revolves around policing, civil protection, civil administration, and judicial administration. The military part on the other hand is based on the idea of combining 60 000 men from member states’ respective national armed forces (Tavares, 2006; 224). Since January 2003, ESDP has been part and parcel of various missions such as in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia and Aceh. These operations ranged from law enforcement and ceasefire monitoring, to security and humanitarian management (Cameron, 2007; 82). Indeed, one would notice that these operations so far built the confidence of EU as a security and defense provider in the world in as far as its CFSP policy is concerned. Furthermore, these operations ascertain the capability of EU in responding to global humanitarian and security crises and contributing to the proliferation of peace, reconstruction and stabilization.

Other important policy initiatives under CFSP which also have a concrete peace and security dimension to them are, (a) “Petersberg Mission/Tasks”; (b) the “Declaration in St. Malo” and (c) the “Helsinki Headline Goals 2010”. In June 1992, after the signing of the Masstricht Treaty, the Petersberg Tasks was

91

adopted which gives the union to some extent the authority to use military force if needed in its humanitarian, peace keeping, crisis management and rescue operations. The St. Malo Declaration is a historic declaration proclaimed in December 1998 which for the first time summoned the union to build up its capability for independent action backed up by military capacities in responding to global crises. According to the declaration, this initiative will not put into question NATO or any defense and security alliances because EU will take military actions in cases where the alliances are not engaged in so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. This agreement accordingly is vital in a way because it brought together two main European defense camps led by France and the United Kingdom. France saw a potential of building a European defense policy to paved the way for a European security and defense policy independent from that of the US, while UK on the other side maintained its position in saying that NATO remains to be key the institution for defense and security in Europe.

On the other hand, via the “Helsinki Headline Goal 2010”, EU conformed to the creation of a European Defense Agency and to the formation of 13 battle groups composed of 1 500 troops capable of high intensity operations to be deployed within 60 days and be sustained for at least a year composed of military personnel capable of realizing the Petersberg Tasks (Tavares, 2006; 224). The Headline Goal 2010 was redefined in June 2004 because of its perceived shortcomings. The revised version says;

“In view of the shortcomings of the Helsinki Headline, member states have decided to commit themselves to be able by 2010 to respond with rapid and decisive action playing a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of

92

crisis management operations covered by the Treaty of European Union. This includes humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping, combat forces in crisis management operations, including peacemaking, disarmament, operations, and extending support to third countries in combating terrorism, and security sector reform. In this revised version of Helsinki Headline 2010, it says that EU must be able to act before a crisis occurs, and ensure preventive engagement to avoid that a deteriorating situation. EU must have the ability to conduct concurrent operations, thus sustaining several operations simultaneously at different levels of engagement” (Cameron, 2007; 76).

Indeed, it is but obvious that CFSP is one concrete policy area which clearly defines and outlines the peace and security dimension of EU.

Just like any other policies at all, CFSP has its own set of humble successes and weaknesses. Unfortunately, CFSP became operational during the breakdown of former Yugoslavia. During this time, EU did not have that much choice but to respond to this crisis and the expectations of the international community is that EU will be able to handle the situation. However, EU fell short of this expectation since it did not have the sufficient amount of resources to address such crisis. Though this had been the case, CFSP is not a complete mess but rather the opposite. It has relative and humble successes in responding to security and peace related issues. To name a few, there was the “Stability Pact Joint Action or Balladur Plan”, which is a series of conferences and seminars organized to discuss issues related to border and ethnic conflicts

93

and concerns in Central and Eastern Europe. Another one is the provision of technical and financial assistance by EU (language training and help in drafting legislation to protect minorities) which to a considerable extent resolved the problems of the Hungarian minorities living outside Hungary (mainly in Romania and Slovakia), and the substantial Russian minorities living in the Baltic states mainly in Lithuania and Latvia (Cameron, 2007; 30).

In as far as tools in the realization of CFSP goals and objectives, it has three most notably used ones. The first is “Joint Actions” which is used for different purposes ranging from election monitoring, to the appointment of special representatives. There were 29 joint actions in 2003 and 25 in 2004 (Cameron, 2007; 31). The second instrument is what you call “Common Positions”, which is to create a space for EU member states to align themselves to a common view, perspective or stands on certain issues and policies towards third countries or critical issues such as the non-proliferation treaty on weapons of mass destruction (NPT-WMD). There were 21 common positions adopted in 2003 and in 2004. The last but not the least is the adoption of a “Common Strategies” of which there were three so far, - Russia in June 1999; Ukraine in December 1999; and the Mediterranean in June 2000. The validity of these common strategies last for four years and this reflect the effort of EU and its member states to adopt a consistent line in dealing with these countries and regions (Cameron, 2007; 31).

The realization of CFSP’s goals and objectives depends on the functioning and building of relevant institutions that would cater to the implementation process of CFSP. There are but several CFSP agencies, one of them is the European Defense Agency (EDA)

94

which was endorsed in the constitutional treaty and created in June 2004 Joint Action of the EU. The EDA has four main pre-occupations; (a) Developing defense capabilities in the field of crisis management (b) promoting and enhancing European armaments cooperation; (c) strengthening the European defense equipment market; (d) promoting research aimed at leadership in strategic technologies for future defense and security capabilities. The significance of EDA is that, it facilitates for the centralization of defense issues under one office and under one authority, the Secretary General/ High Representative and defense ministers (Cameron, 2007; 81);

e. European Security Strategy ESS)

For quite sometimes, EU has never been able to agree on a common and security priority issues. However, the Iraq War induced some changes to this situation. EU came up with a strategy document entitled “A Secure Europe in a Better World”, which embodies and outline the European Security Strategy (ESS) which is considered to be the central point in any discussion pertaining to security and foreign policy of EU. This security strategy actually promises to tackle so called new major threats which include terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure and organized crime. The basic idea behind ESS is to resolve these global threats using a “multilateral approach” by supporting the UN system and coordination with different international and regional organizations and entities. Another important component of ESS is the concept of “preventive engagement” rather than “pre-emption” which

95

distinguishes EU strategy from that of the US national security strategy of September 2002. The ESS states that EU has three main strategic goals to respond to current global security and peace related challenges and threats. First, extending the zone of security to Europe’s periphery; second, supporting the emergency of a stable and equitable international order and third, seeking effective counter- measures to new and old threats. Moreover, these counter-measures have common characteristics and these are; (a) the recognition that the first line of defense lies beyond EU frontiers; (b) the acknowledgement that inaction is not an option and; (c) the understanding that a military response is not always appropriate but might form one element of a combined response. The rationale behind all these is for EU to engage in a systematic political process of prevention (Cameron, 2007; 7).

Since 9/11, the world has been exposed to the realization that one crucial threat to peace and security and stability is the threat of “Terrorism”13 (terrorists and terrorist networks and organizations). The international dimension of terrorism is very evident and this is a threat that even a “security community” like EU could not afford to be complacent about. EU as a regional body trying to protect and shield itself from the atrocities of terrorist attacks with strong pressures from the United States formulated its own policies to combat terrorism. The main idea of the said strategy to fight and combat terrorism revolves around the concept of prevention, protection, prosecution and consequence management. Prevention measure includes dealing with money laundering while protection 13 Terrorism means…. Terrorism being referred to as the world’s second oldest profession has moved to the top of global political and security agenda. It literally replaced the Cold War as one of dominant global threats. The global threat being exudes by terrorism has significantly increased due to “globalization”, the worldwide reach of the media, international banking system, the ease of foreign travel and information technology revolution that are sweeping the world today.

96

would mean building critical infrastructure that will sustain and reinforce the fight against terrorism at the state, regional and global levels. On the other hand, Prosecution involves closer judicial cooperation, including the issuance of arrest warrant and consequent management would mean reducing the risk of terrorist attacks and limiting damage once a terrorist attack happens (Cameron, 2007; 191) .

As a consequence, a significant development in EU took placed vis-à-vis its counter terrorism policies and strategies, - the intensified interplay and interdependence of domestic policies of EU member states and EU foreign policies which are contextualized in the third pillar of EU, - the justice and home affairs (JHA). This actually showed that terrorism is not only a global but a regional threat as well that encouraged and motivated the Union to foster closer and deeper cooperation most especially in the JHA field. This development did not only took effect within EU and among its member countries but most significantly it had “spill over effects” in the forging a JHA transatlantic cooperation which is more latent and has been intensified and covers transport issues, data protection, money-laundering, customs, border controls, police and intelligence cooperation (Cameron, 2007, 191; 198).

97

These developments paved the way for the proliferation of new supra-national institutions such as Europol,14 Eurojust,15 and the European Police College (CEPOL) (Cameron, 2007; 191). Along side all these was the formulation of the anti-terrorist measures that were agreed upon during the European Council meeting in Tampere, Finland in 1999. There were 70 measures taken and some of the most important and noteworthy measures are as follows (Cameron, 2007; 192-193);

Enhancing police and judicial cooperation – the introduction of the European police warrant and the adoption of the common definition of terrorism.

Drawing up common list of terrorist organizations. Improving cooperation and exchange of information between

all intelligence services. Setting up joint investigation teams. Sharing with Europol all useful data regarding terrorism. Establishing special terrorist teams within Europol.

14 Europol was set up by the Maastricht Treaty, and accountable to the Justice and Home Affairs Council. It was originally a clearing house for the exchange of intelligence on drug trafficking. After all EU member states ratified the Europol Convention in 1998 its mandate was extended to deal all serious forms of international crime, including terrorism. Europol serves as the central databank on terrorism, and maintains a computerized information system for consultation by member states. It also has a special counter-terrorism taskforce that specializes in profiling o Islamic terrorists. Though Europol is one of the most relevant institutions in the fight against terrorism, its role has remained limited to the collection, transmission and analysis of data provided national forces. It has also very limited human and financial resources (Cameron; 2007; 195). 15 Eurojust was se up in February 2002 to improve the effectiveness of the prosecuting and investigating authorities in the member states by promoting cooperation between its members, providing information on judicial cases and liaising with third countries, especially the US. Each member state is represented in Eurojust by senior, experienced prosecutors or judges. Eurojust is the firs permanent network of judicial authorities in the world and handled about 300 cases in 2005 ranging from coordinating house searches in different countries to police requesting access to bank accounts outside their own jurisdiction.

98

Developing international legal instruments – and agreeing that all existing international conventions on the fight against terrorism were to be implemented as quickly as possible.

Stopping the funding of terrorism – directive on money laundering.

Strengthening air security – classification of weapons, technical training for crew, checking and monitoring of hold luggage, protection of cockpit areas, quality control of security measures, applied by member states.

Coordinating the EU global action – concentrating on prevention and stabilization of regional conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

However, after the terrorist attack in Madrid in March 2004, EU made some revision on the above mentioned measures and professed the Declaration on Combating Terrorism, which gives precedence to the establishment of a counter-terrorism coordinator to oversee all European efforts in the fight against terrorism and these include, the integration of all intelligence structure within the Council Secretariat, a reinforced role of Europol, Eurojust, and the Police Chief’s Task Force. The EU also further agreed to cover two more measures, - “the solidarity cause” which means mutual assistance in the event of a terrorist attack; and “the creation of European Border Agency”. Externally, EU opted for the strengthening of UN bodies that has the potential to deal with terrorism issues effectively, closer cooperation with NATO and other international organizations.

Inevitably and obviously, the combat against terrorism has an extra-regional dimension. EU is quite very much aware that

99

terrorism cannot be defeated by one country or even by a single regional organization alone like itself. EU recognized that there is a need to coordinate and negotiate with third countries and international bodies both non-governmental (i.e. international civil society) and inter-governmental organizations (i.e. United Nations) to make counter-terrorism policies more effective and efficient. EU recognizes as well that there is a need for it to support international efforts on terrorism. For instance, EU has collaborative work and initiatives with the UN. One concrete example of this collaboration between the two institutions was when EU helped and mobilized huge amount of support for the Convention against Terrorism internationally. Another one was when EU joined the UN in its counter-terrorism activities and sent some experts to Algeria, Albania, and Morocco. In a way, it is but evident that “terrorism” became the top agendum in almost all EU meetings with third countries specifically with Russia, India, Pakistan and the US.

In addition, other manifestations of EU external and international support in the global combat against terrorism include, first and foremost the counter–terrorism declaration that was agreed upon between EU and Euro- Mediterranean partner countries; second is the negotiated counter-terrorism plan between EU and countries like Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Ukraine; third were the agreed counter-terrorism measures of EU i.e. container security, airline passenger name records, extradition, and mutual legal assistance; fourth, is the establishment of a high dialogue to discuss border and transport security; fifth, the established close working relationship between EU and the US intelligence and custom agencies and officials (the US Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of

100

Investigation (FBI) posted liaison officers at the Europol); and sixth is the expectation that sooner or later, Europol and Russia will be working together and closely on security matters in the near future given that Russia agreed to the necessity for data protection rules (Cameron, 2007; 197-198). Other means by which EU extends its support and assistance to third countries in their fight against terrorism include the provision of regular technical assistance to third countries, police and judicial cooperation to border management, enhanced information exchange and data protection, from legislative to policy funding, and from national to regional cooperation. Today, there is at lest 80 countries that benefit from such EU financed counter – terrorism programs (Cameron, 2007; 190).

Internationally, EU and its member states are part of the different international non-proliferation regimes like Australia group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Nuclear Supplier’s Group, Wassenar Arrangement, Zangger Committee). The union is also very much committed to international treaties and laws preventing the proliferation of weapon of mass destruction (WMD). On the other hand, EU responses on issues that has something with state failure and governance issues are quite varied and a combination of different policies. Its short term responses to crisis include military action in extreme crisis situations. In terms of long term strategies, sustainable development is still the primordial tool in responding to state and governance failure and crisis. However, the most important contribution of EU in the prevention of conflict outbreak is the provision of sufficient and effective development assistance to states that are plagued with governance and state failures (Tavares, 2006; 222).

101

f. European Transatlantic Relations

The US – EU relations is the most strategic geo-political relations in the world. They account for 70% of global expenditures in defense and collaborated in many defense initiatives including the issue of Iran ambition to be nuclear power in the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine dispute, the intensified humanitarian crisis in Sudan and the still violent and conflict prone Balkan region. However, because of unilateral policy of the US showcased in the Iraq invasion, the EU-US relations had been tainted. Many Europeans until now are quite very critical of the US approach in its fight for terrorism especially its unilateral policy in combating global security issues and peace related concerns. Another reason behind the seemingly diverging trends of the EU-US relations is the fact that though there are loci of cooperation, there is but a wide disparity in how the two respond to global political and strategic security issues including economic, social and humanitarian crises.

However, in view of the importance and necessity of maintaining such strategic geo-political relations between EU and the US, both agreed to revisit and enhance the basis of such relations in order for the these two big powers to have a coherent, cohesive and effective strategies and approaches to global crises. This facilitated for the creation of the so –called “New Transatlantic Agenda” (NTA), of which the US and the EU both expressed commitment to and which could be traced from the “1990 Transatlantic Declaration” saying;

“To further strengthen their partnership in order to; support democracy, the rule of law and respect for human

102

rights and individual liberty, safeguard peace and promote international security, by contributing to the settlement of conflicts in the world and by reinforcing the role of the United Nations” (Cameron; 2007; 92).

NTA basically proposes joint actions between the EU and the US on the following areas;

Promoting peace and stability, democracy and development around the world

Respond to global challenges Contributing to the expansion of world trade and closer

economic relations Building bridges across the Atlantic (Cameron, 2007; 93)

Furthermore, NTA facilitated for the creation and establishment of new areas of cooperative measures between EU and the US. In the area of trade, the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) was created. Other forms of transatlantic cooperation in the form of dialogues include; Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD); Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue (TALD), Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) and the Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue (TAED) (Cameron; 2007; 93). There are indeed many indications showing that despite the gap between EU and the US at least both are willing and have the desire to work together, strike a compromise and consensus on issues which both have to reach an agreement or common position, and coordinate and cooperate on strategic global issues and challenges that could pay service to the ever conflicting world we are all part of. This willingness of gaining cooperation from both sides has been

103

reinforced in the words of some prominent people from both camps. To quote from some of them, please refer below;

“I have seen over the past a shift in emphasis among Europeans from a focus on past differences to commitment to work together on global challenges”.

Dan Fried US Assist Secretary of State fro European Affairs

Mach 18, 2006(Cameron, 2007; 103)

“After the Iraq war, if we are going to have a strategic partnership between Europe and America, we have to work out the basis of that and how we can make progress on issues that are different between us”.

Tony BlaireUK Former Prime Minister

(Cameron, 2007; 103)

Javier Solana on the other hand in his European Security Policy Paper of June 2003 spoke on the vitality of the transatlantic relations to resolve security and peace related problems of the world such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapon of mass destruction.

Indeed, EU and the US being two of the most capable and important global players in world affairs must work together and try to balance out their significant stands, perspectives and positions to

104

significantly contribute in resolving and addressing global issues of today.

Chapter 6: Analysis and Conclusion

It is but obvious that the world is not ready to establish a global authority to sufficiently promote and maintain world peace and security. Regionalism can be the first step in gaining experience and building areas of consensus toward eventual inter-governmental coordination and the proliferation of peace and security in every parts of the world.

Regionalization offers the opportunity of redefining security, creating cooperative mechanisms for resolving conflict that could free up military spending and redirect the resources towards meeting human needs. Regionalization facilitates tolerance, offers space to seek common goal of stable condition. It facilitates constructive cooperation and peaceful co-existence in the midst of diversity. It constructs mutual tolerance, reciprocal recognition, respect and equal partnership to create mutually beneficial relations. It paves the way for enhanced cooperation resulting to the reduction of costs and uncertainty, limiting asymmetries of information. Most of all, regional integration facilitates the collective resolution of problems both at the regional and state level and these efforts are complemented by the existence of “regional/supra-national institutions” and a regional leader – a dominant member state of a regional grouping – acting as a focal point of coordination and “paymaster” easing the distributed tensions. The presence of these factors would indeed make regional integration more successful.

105

Regional integration is important in relation to peace and security building initiatives because of its inherent reality which is instrumental in bringing governments together and in effect in providing governments with common tasks depending on the nature of such integration and cooperation which are useful in maintaining relations and reducing tensions. Indeed, regional integration is a potent and viable “push factor” for outsiders’ cooperation as facilitated by certain conditions (the security, recent cooperative experiences, and common objectives, the demands of actors’ benefiting from regional integration), and is disturbed by other factors, (divergent preferences to achieving policy objectives, protectionist demands of actors standing to lose from market integration, etc).

The European Union (EU) so far as a regional organization embodies these realities of a relatively successful regional integration. Both as a regional and a global player, it serves as a promoter and provider of peace and security beyond its borders by virtues of its different peace and security instruments, agents and mechanisms being extended to its member countries and to its neighboring countries and to third countries.

So far, EU as a regional community is a cogent international agent of peace and security. As a cohesive “zone of peace” or as a “security community”, EU transcends its internal role and becomes more concerned of its global responsibility as a promoter of peace and security.

106

Chapter 7: List of Bibliographies

Book Sources:

Aghrout, A. and Alexander, M. (1997) “Euro-Mediterranean Strategy and the Maghreb Countries”, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, Autumn, 1997.

Aliboni, R. (1992) ‘’Southern European Security: Perceptions and Problems’’ in Aliboni, R., ed. Southern European Security in the 1990s, London, Printer, 1992.

107

Bruce, Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, New York; Columbia University Press, 1998.

Byorn, Hettne, (eds), Studies on Peace and Regional Security: Europe Dimensions of Peace, London, 1998.

Calabrese, J., Beyond Barcelona: “The Politics of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership”, European Security, Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter, 1997.

Cram, L., Policy Making in the EU, London ad New York, Routledge, 1997.

Christopher, Hill and Smith Mirael (eds), International Relations and

the European Union, Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2005.

Erwin, Laszlo with Joel Kurtzman and A.K. Bhattacharya, RCDC (Regional Cooperation among Developing Countries): The New Imperative of Development in the 1980s, UNITAR, 1981.

European Commission, EU Enlargement: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2007-2008, Brussels, 2007.

European Commission, Understanding Enalrgement: The European Union’s Enlargement Polciy, Belgium, 2007.

Fraser, Cameron, An Introduction to European Foreign Policy, Routledge, London, 2007.

108

Geyer, H.S., (eds), Global Regionalization: Core Peripheral Trends, Northampton, MA, USA, 2006

Gillespie, R., (ed), The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: The Barcelona Process, London and Portland OR, Frank Cass.

Harvey, Starr, “Revolution and War: Rethinking the Linkage Between Internal an External Conflict”, Political Research Quarterly 47 (June 1994), pp. 481-507.

Horst, Fischer and Noelle Quenivet, Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Nationa and/or State-Building, Berlin, 2005.

International Social Science Council and UNESCO Social and Human Sciences Sector, Regional Cooperation and Peace, Series No. 2, 1989.

James, Brown and William P. Snyder, (eds), The Regionalization of Warfare: The Falkand/Malvinas Islands, Lebanon, and the Iran–Iraq Conflict, National Strategy Information Center Inc., New York, 1985.

Joffe, G., “The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Initiative: Problems and Prosepcts” in Joffe, G., (eds), Perspective on Development: The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, London ad Portland Oregon, 1999.

109

Joffe, G., “Europe and the Mediterranean: The Barcelona Process Five Years On”, Briefing Paper, New Series No. 16, London, Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2000.

Kalevi, J. Holsti, (7th eds), International Politics, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1995.

Kalevi, J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989, Cambridge; Cambridge UniversityPress, 1991.

Kenneth, Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, New York; Columbia University Press, 1959.

Lake, A. and Robert Powell, (eds), Strategic Choice and International Relations, Princeton, N.J; Princeton University Press; 1999.

Lister, M., (eds), New Perspective on European Union Development Cooperation, Boulder and Oxford, Westview Press, 1999.

Nair, S., “Report on the Commission Communication on Relations between the EU and the Mediterranean Region: Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process”, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights Common Security and Defense Policy, European Parliament, Final A5-0009/2001, 22 January 2001.

Ramunas, Vilpisauskas, Regional Integration in Europe: Analyzing Intra-Baltic Cooperation in the Context of European Integration, EUI Working Papers, Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies, RSC No. 2000/41, Italy, 2000.

110

Rein, E., “Europe and the Greater Middle East” in Blackwill R. and Strumer, M. (eds), Allies Divided: Trans-Atlantic Policies for the Greater Middle East, Cambridge, Mass MIT Press, 1997.

Robert, H. Manley, (eds), Building Peace: Actors and Factors; University Press of America, 1980.

Rodrigo, Tavares, Understanding Regional Peace and Security: A Framework for Analysis, Goteborg University, School of Global Studies, Department of Peace and Development, 2007.

Stephen, M. Walt, Revolution and War, Ithaca, New York; Cornell University Press, 1996.

United Nations Department of Public Information, Assisting Nations to Cultivate Peace after Conflict: The Work of the United Nations Peace-Building Support Office, New York, 2002.

United Nations, Disarmament, New Realities: Disarmament, Peace Building and Global Security, {Excerpts from the Panel discussions organized by the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Inc., at a conference held at the United Nations in New York 20-23, April 1993}, New York, 1993

Internet Based Resource:

111

http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/European_Neighborhood_Policy_and_Euro-Mediterranean_Partnership

112